this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43863 readers
1838 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
11
I'm the author of an April Fool's Internet Standard, AMA (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Let's get the AMAs kicked off on Lemmy, shall we.

Almost ten years ago now, I wrote RFC 7168, "Hypertext Coffeepot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances" which extends HTCPCP to handle tea brewing. Both Coffeepot Control Protocol and the tea-brewing extension are joke Internet Standards, and were released on Apr 1st (1998 and 2014). You may be familiar with HTTP error 418, "I'm a teapot"; this comes from the 1998 standard.

I'm giving a talk on the history of HTTP and HTCPCP at the WeAreDevelopers World Congress in Berlin later this month, and I need an FAQ section; AMA about the Internet and HTTP. Let's try this out!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A new RFC for IPv7. It's just IPv4 with an extra octet. Yes or no?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the extra address space of IPv6 is the problem holding back its adoption, so "IPv4 with another octet" would likely run into the same issues.

Not that it's a bad idea, it's just an idea that's unlikely to catch on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would you say is holding IPv6 back?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The biggest problem IPv6 has is that IPv4 has been so hugely successful: gargantuan resources have been poured into getting the world connected on IPv4, and the routers/etc deployed in the field (especially in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and other places which got the Internet late) are built around version 4: data paths 32 bits wide, ASICs and firmware developed with 4-byte offsets, and so on.

It's a big effort, and more importantly an expensive effort, to move all that infrastructure over for what the end user perceives as no benefit: their websites load just the same as before.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you saying there’s no financial incentive at the individual level to upgrade?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Essentially. If the end user is being asked to make a financial outlay to get to the same things they did before, it's unlikely that will go down well.