• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • Sorry, but your reply suggests otherwise.

    I’m at work, I’m not going to go into a thesis on ip allocation.

    The RIRs (currently) never allocate a /64 nor a /58. /48 is their (currently) smallest allocation. For example, of the ~800,000 /32’s ARIN has, only ~47k are “fragmented” (smaller than /32) and <4,000 are /48s. If /32s were the average, we’d be fine, but in our infinite wisdom, we assign larger subnets (like Comcast’s 2601::/20 and 2603:2000::/20).

    Correct all noted here https://www.iana.org/numbers/allocations/arin/asn/

    Taking into account the RIPE allocations, noted above, the closer equivalent to /8 is the 1.048M /20s available. Yes, it’s more than the 8-bit class-A blocks, but does 1 million really sound like the scale you were talking about? “enough addresses in ipv6 to address every known atom on earth”

    If you’re going to go through and conflate 2^128 as being larger than the amount of atoms on earth to a prefixing assignment scheme I’m just going to assume this is a bad faith argument.

    Have a good one I’m not wasting more time on this. The best projections for “exhausting” our ipv6 allocations is around 10 million years from now. I think by then we can change the default cidr allocations.

    https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm

    Its old sure but not worth arguing further.



  • I’m fully aware how rirs allocate ipv6. The smallest allocation is a /64, that’s 65535 /64’s. There are 2^32 /32’s available, and a /20 is the minimum allocatable now. These aren’t /8’s from IPv4, let’s look at it from a /56, there are 10^16 /56 networks, roughly 17 million times more network ranges than IPv4 addresses.

    /48s are basically pop level allocations, few end users will be getting them. In fact comcast which used to give me /48s is down to /60 now.

    I’ll repeat, we aren’t running out any time soon, even with default allocations in the /3 currently existing for ipv6.







  • I grew up on a farm, any programmer that thinks farming or ranching is better is gonna have a rude awakening as to why there are very few farmers anymore.

    So no not every computer guy dreams of the farm, repairing 10miles of fence every April for the entire month all day every day isn’t what I would consider an improvement over programming. And that’s the easy part wait till you gotta help an animal struggling to give birth.

    I get programmers have this idea that farming or ranching is more pure somehow but it is murder on your body and soul in ways you wont understand. programming and computer stuff is a cakewalk in comparison. more politics but learn to play the game of thrones and its not too bad.


  • It’s more likely an admission they have to trampoline every gpl function in the kernel which isn’t really easy to do and would let that kernel module run on any other kernel. Otherwise they would have to do a shim like nvidia which would mean a whole other level of issues like saying we support Linux but only Ubuntu which as a non Ubuntu user would mean to me they do not in fact support Linux. I’d vote with walle here but I already don’t own this game as my friends said the user base is terrible years ago but this just means there is no reason to buy any of their games.










  • mitchty@lemmy.sdf.orgtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldRussian delete
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Key here is the outer [] and interaction of $[], test doesn’t have == by default in standard posix, so no this isn’t posix shell or bourne compatible. Tis but another bashism. I could probably force zsh into a more bourne mode to try it but its definitely not portable bourne shell its bash.

    $ [ $[ $RANDOM % 6 ] == 0 ] && echo rm || echo ok
    zsh: = not found
    $ zsh --version
    zsh 5.9 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
    

    == should be -eq for this to be posix/bourne portable, you could use = but -eq is for numeric comparisons so not quite right.