![](https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/f91e7c55-b9f0-4519-bfba-afea53bf9074.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8286e071-7449-4413-a084-1eb5242e2cf4.png)
It offers no practical benefit to small networks at the moment.
The internet is not a “small network”, and I assume your small network is connected to it. You need local IPv6 routing to have access to IPv6-only hosts which are becoming more and more because it’s reasonable in terms of price to get an IPv6 block unlike IPv4 blocks which are being auctioned for tens of thousands of dollars at this point (!!!).
Also restoring global addressing is a huge benefit. P2P communications in IPv4 has become an insane mess of workarounds due to lack of addresses and this becomes worse the more layers of NAT you stick behind each other to try to save your ass from the rising tide.
I’m really sick of hearing these idiotic excuses over and over, “it’s hard” this, “it’s unsafe” that, “it’s expensive”, “understanding the eldritch secrets of IPv6 has driven 5 of my colleagues into madness” skill issue. THERE ARE NO MORE IPV4 ADDRESSES. So unless your network is so fucked that you haven’t managed to fix it in 26 years, since IPv6 has been standardized, or it really is just an internal network with no outward facing services where it doesn’t matter when someone who just has IPv6 can’t access it because they wouldn’t be able to access it anyway, and you’re not some kind of ISP, you have no reason not to have support for it at this point and you absolutely never have a reason to tell people it’s not “useful” because that is straight up wrong in the general case even if it might be true for your situation.
Rewriting huge parts of the IDL compiler for Nucom, my implementation of Microsoft’s COM binary interface standard and (in the future) network protocol. The original version was hacked together with a lot of assumptions made in the parser and isn’t very extensible, and I do need to extend it now.
(Nucom is another way to have a stable ABI for Rust, e.g. for a plugin interface, and for Rust/C++ (and more OOP-style C) interop, based on objects with vtable pointers. And hopefully sometime in the future, transparent IPC and networking so you don’t have to load plugins into your process’s memory space if they don’t need to be there, with it working the same as if it were direct calls. All of this I assume you can already do on Windows with the windows-rs crate but it’s obviously Windows-only.)
I do have to say though, I need a better way of transforming my syntax tree. Right now I’m just copying the struct definitions over and over for each compile stage and manually writing code to copy everything instead of just the parts I’m actually transforming, and it just seems like there has to be a better way. I might want another proc macro for this.