4 ms·

> ...you have this terrible habit of completely ignoring the actual point someone is trying to make and bogging straight down into the minutiae of some technica

> ...you have this terrible habit of completely ignoring the actual point someone is trying to make and bogging straight down into the minutiae of some technical detail instead. ... [w]ould you maybe get past that and look at my actual point, which is that multiple addresses is the expected and default behavior of IPv6... Here's your comment's [0] second paragraph: I think this is the biggest change with IPv6: that a machine’s IP addresses is no longer its identity, and you can’t easily predict what address will be used when connecting somewhere. IP-based access control becomes impossible (not that it was ever a great idea in the first place), reverse DNS lookups become irrelevant, seeing IP’s in logs no longer tells you “what machine connected here”, it’s overall a big change in mental model. An attentive reader notes that I did not object to your comment's first paragraph. [1] Such a reader also notes that in your reply to me you both double down on the claim that it's impossible to centrally control what IPv6 addresses a host has, and go on to claim that even if you could it would be undesirable to do so. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47987900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47987900> [1] "The changes to Ethernet lookup mandate that you have a link-local address in addition to your “real” address, and this starts the ball rolling on the idea that machines have multiple IP addresses in general. Which makes privacy addresses commonplace, ULA+GUA addresses on the same machine, etc."

ninkendo 5mo ago
See here you go again. I'm not doubling down on anything. My claim goes like this. Tell me where you disagree. 1. In a typical IPv6 setup you have more than one address. You even had to exclude android from the discussion just to bring up a scenario where this isn't true. > Yes, I'm very aware that Android doesn't support anything that DHCPv6 provides other than getting an entire damn prefix delegated. For the duration of this discussion, let's ignore Android. Yeah so as long as we ignore the largest operating system in the world by number of devices, yeah you totally are making a great point here. 2. In such a setup, things like IP-based access control become impossible (no, I'm not going to just pretend android doesn't exist, sorry), reverse DNS lookups become irrelevant, etc. 3. Yes, it is possible to configure a network such that these things are not the case, but that is not a typical IPv6 setup. There are a lot of reasons this setup is not typical, there are a lot of SHOULD lines in various IEEE specs that talk about this. Hell, even if you get your network configured perfectly, it's not going to stop a random machine from deciding to use its link-local address when talking to somemachine.local (which happens all the damned time in my network.) It's like if someone came in and critiqued that /64 is way too huge of a subnet size in IPv6, and you responded with "yeah but you can change it and run a /96 network!" Which while technically true is also not how literally fucking anybody does IPv6 at all. Now I wait while you attack the above with dumb fucking nitpicks about technicalities while totally fucking ignoring the point I was trying to make. Go ahead, you've done it in these threads for years.
- simoncion 5mo ago
  Hon, you really need to step away from the keyboard and seek yourself some headpats, or other such comforting entertainment. I expect that -like most people- once you're able to find a way to regularly and reliably enhance your calm, you'll be better able to take critique and acknowledge when parts of your argument are substandard. Best of luck to you.

ninkendo 5mo ago

See here you go again. I'm not doubling down on anything. My claim goes like this. Tell me where you disagree. 1. In a typical IPv6 setup you have more than one address. You even had to exclude android from the discussion just to bring up a scenario where this isn't true. > Yes, I'm very aware that Android doesn't support anything that DHCPv6 provides other than getting an entire damn prefix delegated. For the duration of this discussion, let's ignore Android. Yeah so as long as we ignore the largest operating system in the world by number of devices, yeah you totally are making a great point here. 2. In such a setup, things like IP-based access control become impossible (no, I'm not going to just pretend android doesn't exist, sorry), reverse DNS lookups become irrelevant, etc. 3. Yes, it is possible to configure a network such that these things are not the case, but that is not a typical IPv6 setup. There are a lot of reasons this setup is not typical, there are a lot of SHOULD lines in various IEEE specs that talk about this. Hell, even if you get your network configured perfectly, it's not going to stop a random machine from deciding to use its link-local address when talking to somemachine.local (which happens all the damned time in my network.) It's like if someone came in and critiqued that /64 is way too huge of a subnet size in IPv6, and you responded with "yeah but you can change it and run a /96 network!" Which while technically true is also not how literally fucking anybody does IPv6 at all. Now I wait while you attack the above with dumb fucking nitpicks about technicalities while totally fucking ignoring the point I was trying to make. Go ahead, you've done it in these threads for years.

simoncion 5mo ago
Hon, you really need to step away from the keyboard and seek yourself some headpats, or other such comforting entertainment. I expect that -like most people- once you're able to find a way to regularly and reliably enhance your calm, you'll be better able to take critique and acknowledge when parts of your argument are substandard. Best of luck to you.