Dagger2

33 ms·

601.
by Dagger2 6y ago
It was. Kubernetes should have been native v6-only from the start, with inbound v4 connections being handled by reverse proxies. Would've simplified the whole thing a bunch.
602.
by Dagger2 6y ago
It doesn't really work any differently to v4. Most of your v4 knowledge still applies to v6's behavior. Subnetting and routing works no differently, and neither do the addresses themselves (other than being longer). It's pass
603.
by Dagger2 6y ago
Bigger nitpick: as per RFC 5952, canonically :: is ::. 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 is a valid way of writing the same address, but it's not the canonical way.
604.
by Dagger2 6y ago
::ffff:0:0/96 is for representing v4 addresses in v6 APIs. If you tell the kernel you want to send a packet to ::ffff:1.2.3.4, you're actually telling it you want to send a (v4!) packet to 1.2.3.4, you're just doing it using
605.
by Dagger2 6y ago
Most cyclists are also drivers, so yeah, I'd expect you to. Noone was telling you to get rid of your car. But not every journey needs to be done by car.
606.
by Dagger2 6y ago
Use one LUKS volume per raw disk. You'll still get raidz/mirroring.
607.
by Dagger2 6y ago
You don't need to stack ZFS-on-LUKS-on-ZFS, you just need to put ZFS onto LUKS rather than onto the raw disks. The downside is that you have a choice between encrypting all file data twice, or losing the benefits of ZFS's encrypti
608.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I used OpenWRT, and bypassed the firewall with `iptables -I FORWARD -j ACCEPT`. There are no NAT-related rules in that chain, so I didn't do anything to the behavior of the NAT. > Regardless as I have repeatedly said, this isn'
609.
by Dagger2 6y ago
That really sounds like you should be buying a new printer, not new cartridges for this printer. (I'm going to mirror the suggestions from everywhere else in this thread and tell you to get a laser, especially since you don't ever
610.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I think v6 is simpler in practice, due to not needing NAT. If the first part of my post is difficult to understand then that serves as a good demonstration of how hard v4 is once address exhaustion and NAT enter the picture.
611.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I run my own copy of bind, and use https://dns.he.net as a slave pulling the zones from it. As a result I can actually use all DNS features. I find it super frustrating that most dynamic DNS providers use their own custom API ra
612.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I can't say I've had those problems, other than throughput being worse (which is a result of proprietary acceleration chips with no published specs to write OSS drivers with). v6 works great on OpenWRT for me -- but then again, so
613.
by Dagger2 6y ago
One of my routers came with OpenWRT, so it's certainly possible to get routers that use it as 1st party firmware. As for routers with random vendor firmware, I'm not familiar enough with all of the vendors out there to give an aut
614.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I'm thinking of 6to4.
615.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I don't think they act as BGP routers. They do act as regular routers though, and will accept and forward traffic for any range unless they have a firewall rejecting it. > This is trivial to prove by placing a NAT router on your int
616.
by Dagger2 6y ago
It means the rewriting of the apparent source address of outbound connections, yes? On Linux, you would do it with `iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wan0 -j MASQUERADE`. Is that an accurate enough description to convince you that I know wh
617.
by Dagger2 6y ago
> Twenty years of poor adoption world-wide demonstrates its lack of easy integration. I don't need to argue this, you just did. This isn't down to the design of v6 though, it's down to two things: the design of v4, and hum
618.
by Dagger2 6y ago
fe80::1? Yeah, I know that. It's not hard to type either, although I don't really ever need to type it because v6 has a method to automatically configure the default route.
619.
by Dagger2 6y ago
You say you want simplicity, then you suggest a "nation-level NAT" that includes keeping v4 alive with overlapping allocations in multiple countries, NATing into v6 to talk to other countries, apparently for a fee that will need t
620.
by Dagger2 6y ago
And we have that, don't we? Every assigned v4 address comes with a v6 /48 too. There's no translation involved with that.
621.
by Dagger2 6y ago
How did we end up in this world where regular DNS updates aren't considered to be "regular dyndns" :/
622.
by Dagger2 6y ago
v4 isn't big enough to handle the current, let alone future, scale of the internet. The point of v6 is to be big enough to do that.
623.
by Dagger2 6y ago
Which is fine. There are 330 million /64s available... per person on the planet. Your home network using one single /64 out of that isn't even a blip. (Actually, if that's all you can get then it's not fine. Your IS
624.
by Dagger2 6y ago
Every IPv4 address has its own IPv6 /48 automatically assigned to it. Forget getting more adoption, apparently it wasn't even enough to stop people from suggesting that v6 should've done something it already did!
625.
by Dagger2 6y ago
I've found v6 is easier to deal with in practice. When you've got a host whose address is 192.168.2.42, but it shows up as 203.0.113.8 to internet hosts, but you had an RFC1918 clash on a few of your acquisitions so some parts of
626.
by Dagger2 6y ago
You haven't given that anywhere near enough thought. You can't just slap some zeros onto the start of a v4 address and come up with a bigger address space that somehow works with v4 networking code. The problem isn't backward
627.
by Dagger2 6y ago
That sounds more like a Mikrotik problem than an IPv6 problem. OpenWRT does most or all of that, for instance.
628.
by Dagger2 6y ago
NAT isn't even a firewall in the first place. The firewall you need for v6? You've already got it in v4, if you've secured your v4 network. ...which a lot of people haven't, because they falsely believe that NAT by itsel
629.
by Dagger2 6y ago
Fair point, though you could probably store all non-ASCII characters in plaintext and still get most of the benefit. I suspect UTF-8 in emails is rare overall, at least for sites that don't have certain region-limited audiences.
630.
by Dagger2 6y ago
You should sit down and just do it. It's really not that complicated.

More ›