Thread 106374221

>>106374221 (OP)
kind of like my bloated cock in your asshole, boy

>>106374221 (OP)
use TFTP for evereting!

>>106374221 (OP)
The only improvements I can think of right now would only make it "bigger". Explain yourself.

>>106375077
All the data you need is already there, just read the buffer.

>>106375193
nta but what is "the buffer"? How do you know where it starts and ends?

>>106375390
network card report

ESPNOW master-race here

>>106375395
Sure, that's the buffer for one packet. But I'm sure your data buffer doesn't fit in one packet?

>>106375414
so it fit in 2 packets

>>106374221 (OP)
>info-ACK

>>106375419
Then how will you know which packet is the first part of the buffer and which one is the second part of the buffer?

>>106375434
time arrived

>>106375441
That's not a reliable metric though, you can't guarantee (and in practice it's not usually the case) that both packets will take the same route from the client to the server and have the same latency

>>106375441
What about packets lost in route or corrupted?

>>106375193
Do you even understand what's going on in the image? Are you serious here?

Use ipv6 only routes then, it's slightly better

>>106375732
Ipv6 sucks asshole

>>106375453
>>106375446
work on my computer

ESPNOW

>>106374221 (OP)
correct, TCP over UDP is the future (QUIC)

>>106374221 (OP)
It wasn't back in the day.

>>106376244
IPv6 rules. Fuck IPv4 and its NAT shit.

>>106375077
Making it bigger would lead to more waste. Just make sure that the initial load of your page is less than 14.6kB after compression, including critical CSS.

>>106377489
I like NAT.
Hide my entire network behind one IP.
Only let incoming connections I want through.

>>106377489
>IPv6 rules
Why? Explain why it's better than IPv4 (except being slightly cheaper).

>>106374221 (OP)
agreed. so why do people refuse to accept SCTP?

>>106377533
NDP mogs ARP hard.
no NAT

>>106377533
> vastly expanded address space
> simplified header format
> improved routing and configuration
> enhanced quality of service
> no NAT

Look up the details yourself.

>>106377489
>2025
>k8s dual stack unsupported on most CNIs, especially cloud ones
I still don't understand it.

>>106377489
your ipv6 is still cucked inwards unless you have a based isp or buy a vps. you just got SCAMMED lmao.

>>106375077
We have already been doing that but its setup and configured manually on the ISP/SP side.

Why didn't they just make more of the TCP header optional? It could be just 12 bytes.

>>106375732
>TCP is bloat
>lemme just 4x the size of the address fields on every single piece of network traffic instead

>>106377654
>vastly expanded address space
what benefit does it bring? only easier for glowies to pin point an IP exactly to you

>>106375428
this meme always hits me when i encounter acknowledge character. i'm so fucking dumb

>>106378320
We can switch to protocols that don't identify your IP as the final destination or source.

>>106378320
they already can, fuck nuts.
why are NAT apologists so fucking stupid?