4 ms·
I’m curious how this wasn’t caught in testing. When you set up a dual-stacked listener which is common when you omit the binding IP, you already get IPv4-mapped
by supriyo-biswas 3y ago
I’m curious how this wasn’t caught in testing. When you set up a dual-stacked listener which is common when you omit the binding IP, you already get IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, and the request logs would have also shown the ::ffff:x.x.x.x addresses. Also curious as to why they are working with text representations of IP addresses instead of binary representations, although the incident GitHub described here could be very well a firewall deciding that IPv6 datagrams were invalid traffic.
However, to make this thread complete, I guess someone will again complain about the address format, without realizing that shoving in extra address bits on an IPv4 datagram is already a new protocol, the networking equivalent of Godwin’s law[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39101523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39101523
- hot_gril 3y agoI'll be that guy. Glad to know I'm not the only one who just wants ipv4 with extra octets. Edit: An aside, these addresses are different in both text or binary representation, but the article doesn't provide many details, so I can't entirely follow.
- dessimus 3y agoThe other big problem I see to getting buy-in from non-networking people is the lack of good sources on how to prepare and roll out ipv6. It takes forever scrolling through pages of documentation that go through the history of ipv6 and the ipv6 numbering format. As though the world needs yet another primer on how long groups of 0's can be dropped to make ::1 be a valid address. Just link to Wikipedia's page explaining ipv6 addressing and move on.