4 ms·

You're basically saying this behavior is acceptable and should be considered normal and should be expected to become the norm. If you think IPv6 is mostly poin

You're basically saying this behavior is acceptable and should be considered normal and should be expected to become the norm. If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
> You're basically saying this behavior is acceptable and should be considered normal and should be expected to become the norm. If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular. Can you point to where I suggested that? Or did you misread the comment?
- warrenm 3y ago
  He quoted you: >it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > He quoted you: > >it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason Huh? There is no quote in that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011. Unless you are referring to a different comment?
    - warrenm 3y ago
      I'm referring to your comment that he quoted - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 Maybe you're misremembering - but you wrote it :)
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > I'm referring to your comment that he quoted - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 Maybe you're misremembering - but you wrote it :) 'johnklos' did not quote a single word from anyone in the comment I linked, nor a single word from my original comment you linked, let alone an entire phrase, and that was the only response he made from what I can see. Are you confusing him with a different HN user? You don't have to believe me, it's accessible to every passing reader right there in the comment chain...
        warrenm 3y ago
        I have to believe you're attempting (but failing) to gaslight me you wrote: "it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359) he wrote: "If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011) As you so helpfully put it, "You don't have to believe me, it's accessible to every passing reader right there in the comment chain..." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37056142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37056142) Feel free to continue to deny what you wrote, how he responded, and me repeatedly showing you where quotes your words if you want - no one stop you from ignoring your own words (eventhough they're right there on display for all) ...but he used your own words in response to your own comment :)
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        What are you on about? There's no sign of 'johnklos' quoting me as you claim. It literally appears in his own words, and he even wrote it in a manner that could not possibly be confused with my style of writing. Just check my recent comment history? Frankly, it's just impossible for there to be a 17 word phrase in that comment that can be interpreted as a quotation, even by a teenager who only started learning English. And in any case, you are free to contact dang, or any other HN user you trust, and ask them to double check whether such a thing occurred. You can also review HN norms, other examples of HN users quoting each other and explicitly acknowledging it, the popular dictionary definitions of 'quote', etc... Since your HN account is nearly 11 years old I'm fairly confident you know various methods to verify these things to a reasonable degree of certainty.
flyinghamster 3y ago
Last time I checked when I hotspotted my T-Mobile (US) phone, hotspot clients got only an IPv6 address, with 6to4 [edit: no, NAT64] translation used to reach IPv4 addresses. This breaks OpenVPN, which insists on both endpoints being one or the other.
- p1mrx 3y ago
  T-Mobile uses NAT64. 6to4 is a (mostly deprecated) protocol for tunneling IPv6 over IPv4.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Last time I checked when I hotspotted my T-Mobile (US) phone, hotspot clients got only an IPv6 address, with 6to4 [edit: no, NAT64] translation used to reach IPv4 addresses. You would have the same problem without IPv6 - your phone doesn't have a spare IPv4 address to give out, it would have to give you some kind of internal-only address and then NAT it when talking to the public internet. > This breaks OpenVPN, which insists on both endpoints being one or the other. That seems unlikely (also why would your server not have a v6 address?). You can't connect to IPv4 addresses by IP because you don't have an IPv4 connection, but connecting to your server by hostname or by v4-address-embedded-in-v6-address should work.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

> You're basically saying this behavior is acceptable and should be considered normal and should be expected to become the norm. If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular. Can you point to where I suggested that? Or did you misread the comment?

warrenm 3y ago
He quoted you: >it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > He quoted you: > >it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason Huh? There is no quote in that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011. Unless you are referring to a different comment?
  - warrenm 3y ago
    I'm referring to your comment that he quoted - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 Maybe you're misremembering - but you wrote it :)
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      > I'm referring to your comment that he quoted - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 Maybe you're misremembering - but you wrote it :) 'johnklos' did not quote a single word from anyone in the comment I linked, nor a single word from my original comment you linked, let alone an entire phrase, and that was the only response he made from what I can see. Are you confusing him with a different HN user? You don't have to believe me, it's accessible to every passing reader right there in the comment chain...
      - warrenm 3y ago
        I have to believe you're attempting (but failing) to gaslight me you wrote: "it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359) he wrote: "If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011) As you so helpfully put it, "You don't have to believe me, it's accessible to every passing reader right there in the comment chain..." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37056142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37056142) Feel free to continue to deny what you wrote, how he responded, and me repeatedly showing you where quotes your words if you want - no one stop you from ignoring your own words (eventhough they're right there on display for all) ...but he used your own words in response to your own comment :)
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        What are you on about? There's no sign of 'johnklos' quoting me as you claim. It literally appears in his own words, and he even wrote it in a manner that could not possibly be confused with my style of writing. Just check my recent comment history? Frankly, it's just impossible for there to be a 17 word phrase in that comment that can be interpreted as a quotation, even by a teenager who only started learning English. And in any case, you are free to contact dang, or any other HN user you trust, and ask them to double check whether such a thing occurred. You can also review HN norms, other examples of HN users quoting each other and explicitly acknowledging it, the popular dictionary definitions of 'quote', etc... Since your HN account is nearly 11 years old I'm fairly confident you know various methods to verify these things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

flyinghamster 3y ago

Last time I checked when I hotspotted my T-Mobile (US) phone, hotspot clients got only an IPv6 address, with 6to4 [edit: no, NAT64] translation used to reach IPv4 addresses. This breaks OpenVPN, which insists on both endpoints being one or the other.

p1mrx 3y ago
T-Mobile uses NAT64. 6to4 is a (mostly deprecated) protocol for tunneling IPv6 over IPv4.
lmm 3y ago
> Last time I checked when I hotspotted my T-Mobile (US) phone, hotspot clients got only an IPv6 address, with 6to4 [edit: no, NAT64] translation used to reach IPv4 addresses. You would have the same problem without IPv6 - your phone doesn't have a spare IPv4 address to give out, it would have to give you some kind of internal-only address and then NAT it when talking to the public internet. > This breaks OpenVPN, which insists on both endpoints being one or the other. That seems unlikely (also why would your server not have a v6 address?). You can't connect to IPv4 addresses by IP because you don't have an IPv4 connection, but connecting to your server by hostname or by v4-address-embedded-in-v6-address should work.