Dagger2

53 ms·

751.
by Dagger2 8y ago
Not as such, it's just that v4 is so small that most ISPs don't bother to give routed prefixes -- or rather they can't, since there aren't enough addresses available to do so. In v6 it's typical to get something lik
752.
by Dagger2 8y ago
Windows ships with an enabled-by-default stateful firewall which rejects any connections from sources not on the local subnet.
753.
by Dagger2 8y ago
If it shows that address while connected to WWAN only, then it's probably coming from 464xlat -- basically your phone synthesizing its own internal v4 network, with any outbound v4 connections being translated into v6 connections to 64
754.
by Dagger2 8y ago
v6 has dual stack, Teredo, 6to4, 6rd, 6over4, ISATAP, 6in4/4in6, NAT64/DNS64, 464xlat, DS-lite, MAP-T/E, 4rd, LW4over6... it has pretty much every possible transition method that can work with v4. You could make a reasonable
755.
by Dagger2 8y ago
> I don't get why they couldn't have kept a simpler / more familiar framework with ipv6 as an option, even if less ideal. Ie, DHCP vs autoconfig stuff That's a statement made with 20 years of hindsight behind it. But
756.
by Dagger2 8y ago
Is guerrillamail.com supposed to be displaying just a "Welcome to nginx" page? Screenshot on the left: https://nat64check.ipv6-lab.net/v6score/measurement-30830/
757.
by Dagger2 8y ago
I did. A good chunk of that chart (addresses, DNS, autoconfig, ARP/NDP, IGMP/MLD) is a result of changing the address size. Some parts of it are incorrect (IPsec) or aren't a difference (multicast). Many of the parts that are
758.
by Dagger2 8y ago
There are far more similarities than there are differences though, and many of the differences are simply direct consequences of expanding the address space.
759.
by Dagger2 8y ago
Do you have an example site? I use dualstack everywhere and I haven't seen the behavior you describe. The only problem I've hit is sites with broken PMTU detection, but that's a problem that exists in v4 too and which needs t
760.
by Dagger2 8y ago
Perhaps, but it turns out not to be possible to extend v4 without producing something that looks like v6. You can only fit 32 bits into the dest address field in the v4 header, and any attempt at working around that problem ends up looking
761.
by Dagger2 8y ago
We already have the best upgrade that's actually possible given the design of IPv4 -- the fundamental problem is a combination of the pigeonhole principle (which means there's no way to allow unmodified v4-only hosts to talk to v6
762.
by Dagger2 8y ago
In the end this indeed doesn't really help you much, because the ISP just ends up maintaining a giant database with records of every single connection that they can use to figure out who did what. And who pays the bill for that? You do
763.
by Dagger2 8y ago
It's not DS-Lite that does that, it's CGNAT. Unfortunately CGNAT on v4 is unavoidable, because there just aren't enough v4 addresses to avoid it, so although it does suck a lot it's hard to blame ISPs for using it. It&#x
764.
by Dagger2 8y ago
It's worth noting that many of the highest traffic websites are in that 12%, to the point that an average dual-stacked customer will see about 50% of their traffic by volume go over v6. That's a very relevant stat when it comes to
765.
by Dagger2 8y ago
There's no particular reason to use the entire IP as the lookup key though; all customers will be numbered out of the ISP's single allocation and you don't need to keep track of the traffic of each individual host, just the o
766.
by Dagger2 8y ago
It would be more accurate to say that they couldn't have made it any _easier_ if they tried. v4 doesn't have the necessary forward compatibility for that.
767.
by Dagger2 9y ago
v6 with privacy addresses is not very much different to current v4 with NAT on the privacy front. You'll still be tracked with cookies and browser fingerprinting either way. Out of curiosity... without cheating, what do you reckon v6 d
768.
by Dagger2 9y ago
Correspondent node functionality in Mobile IPv6 does exactly that, by sending the packets directly between the two nodes involved. Basically it works by associating the connection with a 128-bit GUID instead of with the node's current
769.
by Dagger2 9y ago
That article covers what happens before the apocalypse. What happens after it, i.e. after the point where AI and robots can not only do our current jobs better than we can, but also all of the ones we could possibly retrain to?
770.
by Dagger2 9y ago
The upcoming AI/robot automation apocalypse means that we are going to have fewer people working. The question is how we're going to deal with that.
771.
by Dagger2 9y ago
They could indeed, but which users and companies would switch to that forked chain knowing that it's worthless? Having a lot of hashing power doesn't let you control the software that other people are running.
772.
by Dagger2 9y ago
You can't just transfer money however you like, even if you had complete control of the blockchain. Transactions still need to be signed by the private key of the wallet involved. You could put a transaction with an invalid signature i
773.
by Dagger2 10y ago
The ridiculous thing here is that it's perfectly possible to make Esc stop animation without also stopping network connections. It's literally just a different argument to the stop function, and you can configure it just fine in B
774.
by Dagger2 12y ago
> 4. And, for all of you who hated Australis, a compact theme with square tabs. Right, because that's totally the problem with Australis. Nothing to do with screwing up customization or the general theme, treating users like idiots
775.
by Dagger2 13y ago
The removal of most UI customization.
776.
by Dagger2 14y ago
Ah... yeah, okay, I really should update that. SixOrNot used to be DNS only, but now it monitors connections too. There's also 4or6, which has easy access to the IPv6-related preferences.