What do you mean? You’ll still have to use TCP or UDP over IPv6, and both of those protocols use ports. Nothing is stopping you from creating a transport protocol that doesn’t use ports if you want to, but that has nothing to do with the network layer.
I mean that to connect to a service you wouldn't need to know the port, the IPv6 address would be enough.
This is why I consider ports a layer violation of sorts. You never talk to a machine with TCP/UDP, you talk to a service on a machine. And so as it is the full address to the service isn't just the layer 3 address.
As I mentioned this would be especially interesting when hosting multiple services, same or different, on the same machine since there would be no port conflict.
Yeah, but I mean you just have to have something on the transport layer, you can't just encapsulate application layer into network skipping network, that's not how the network stack works.
Perhaps it's because I'm tired but I can't make sense of your objection.
As I said you could implement it by having TCP/UDP as is, just with a fixed port number. This wouldn't be unlike the myriad of other conventions that litter IPv6, such as using /64 for a host or ULA's having a certain prefix.
Got it, makes sense. It just seems more like an architectural decision to me than something related to the network stack - that's why I got confused. You can come up with your own convention and use it within a local network. One of the downsides of this approach - it will clutter up the routing table, but that’s probably not a big deal.
I usually prefer to use some kind of demultiplexer, like a reverse proxy, to handle the conversions.
What argument? It was just contradiction, he didn't care how much evidences and points I brought. 3 months of trauma and depression and it is just merely irk in his eyes. It was just an unfunny, callous version monty python's sketch.
- but in this case I wouldn't advocate for [dead]ing a mostly AI response as it was exactly what was asked for and it compares AI models when asked for potato based dad jokes.
I think you could make that case for poetry but I'm not sure about jokes. Great poems tell us something new or make us feel something new, which is hard to do when the subject is lemons, while jokes work by wedging the familiar into new contexts.
That's why the jokes work somewhat better than the poems here. I genuinely laughed at "Are those chips?" Which came from the model running on my own freakin' GPU.
Yeah I mean I also chuckle at good (or cheap) puns sometimes. But wordplay and puns are the current ceiling of LLMs. Good at them because they're purely structural (pattern-match on phonetics, then swap the meaning). In that bit, there's no buildup, no callbacks, no escalation, no expectations to subvert, no thesis, no perspective.
Grounded, buried, couchy, deep-seated, eyes, baked... It's like a thesaurus!
I feel like human comedians would have to deal with a lot of layered subtleties. They would make the potatoes _serve the bit_ instead of _be the bit_.
reply