Technology

58303 readers

16 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

248

New UEFI vulnerabilities send firmware devs industry wide scrambling (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

No shit.

But a private Lan will never need it.

There are 4 billion+ possible IP v4 addresses, nearly 600 million in the current private range.

Show me a private network with 600 million devices.

There's no reason a device that doesn't have a direct internet connection needs IP6.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ideally, using just IP6 would be simpler, as every device gets a global address. Then you don't need to mess with NAT, port forwarding and all that bullshit. Every device having multiple addresses just complicates things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

A device on your private IPv4 network can send packets directly to 104.21.36.127 via NAT. How will it send packets to 2606:4700:3033::6815:247f? There's not enough space in the IPv4 header.