eqvinox

23 ms·

571.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
> how is that to do with Tesla manufacturing standard? Unless further data/evidence is provided, it is reasonable to assume all car owners treat their cars equally shitty, and as such can be ignored in this equation since it applies
572.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
I haven't worked at sendmail or even anything e-mail related, and I can do that… just enough e-mail fixing as side work. Let's call it sysadmin calluses. What made me stumble recently was having to talk LMTP to fix a mailman setu
573.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
Basically NAT64. (Teredo requires the IPv4 hosts to have awareness of it, this doesn't.)
574.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
That's all true on a statement level, but doesn't make an IPv4:IPv4 NAT solution better than either VRF/encap or IPv6 mapping. The benefit with VRF/encap is that the IPv4 packets are unmodified. The benefit with IPv6 map
575.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
That is a valid point. Though I would probably check first what the scaling limits on VRFs actually are; there was some netdev work a while back to fix scaling with 100k to 1M devices (a VRF is a device, though also a bit more than that)
576.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
The key distinction with a L3VPN setup is that the packets are unmodified from and including the IP layer upwards, they're just encapsulated/labelled/tagged (depending on your choice of distinguisher). That encapsulation&#x2
577.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
everything is a container these days, and yet somehow collective-we don't manage to have AI agents run in a container layer on top of our current work, so we can later commit or rollback?
578.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
The squishy side. Coincidentally I think that's an overestimation on the number of devices that don't support IPv6. At this point, vendors have to go out of their way to disable IPv6, and they lose out on some government/ent
579.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
That's all true, but you can also, you know, like, talk to people without buying your whole solution from them :) (btw, have you actually read past the first 7 words? I'm much more interested what people think about the latter pa
580.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
They clearly haven't talked to a telco or network device vendor, they would've sold them a VRF/EVPN/L3VPN based solution… for a whole bunch of money :) You can DIY that these days though, plain Linux software stack, with
581.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
https://chaos.social/@equinox/111752488503367272 (disclaimer: shitpost. my shitpost.)
582.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
That, and ASPA, and https://manrs.org/
583.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
> This isn’t about a strategy for some random tier 2/3 ISP. That's not a constraint you mentioned in your original post. > Ok. 5 minutes. The point is clearly there’s route changes happening globally already. It should not b
584.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
> I don't think multiple owners share the same hostnames. That's exactly what I mean, this approach wouldn't be able to handle unconstrained sharing of systems among multiple users. If you're, say, a freelancer who h
585.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
> It gives you a cheap way to preflight what will happen when you make a globally impacting config change. Your "1-minute flap" can propagate and trigger load on every single DFZ BGP router on the planet . That's not chea
586.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
hmm. I see the point about using the same hostname… but that's what .ssh/config is for. You also can't really use the public hostname for this, can you. Unless you do really complex DNS trickery, you can only return one (set
587.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
> came away convinced that the problem was worth solving What convinced you? I don't see it. The user is using SSH, if they can't pass a -p option (or type it in a GUI) to their SSH client they won't be able to do much w
588.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
You forgot the most useful (and thus important) discovery tool of all: ping ff02::1%eth0
589.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
Nope… you need to follow the instructions: gcc -std=gnu89 -m32 -fno-builtin because GCC defaults to ISO C23 these days, and that will not work, and neither will anything where int and a pointer aren't the same size :)
590.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
Very high quality shitposting. Approved.
591.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
In IA_NA mode, you're at the mercy of the DHCPv6 server for any kind of address privacy. And good luck getting a second address if you want to run a CLAT for 464. You don't want this in a home network. As for servers, you mostly
592.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
> I don’t have any idea how they got the ip, You might've been using DHCPv6 assigning sequential addresses starting at 1? Remember: friends don't let friends use DHCPv6[*]. Help out, uninstall DHCPv6 today. [*] in IA_NA mode (a
593.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
At this point it's impossible to tell if this is sarcasm or not. Brave new world we got there.
594.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
I expected a GIS (geographic information system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system ) and was left very confused. What even is a GIS here?
595.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
Sorry, too lazy to sign up just to try it out.
596.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
same here
597.
by eqvinox 9mo ago
If anything, that's why you discard ICMP port unreachable, which I assume you meant. If you're blanket dropping all ICMP errors, you're breaking PMTUD. There's a special place reserved in hell for that. (And if you'
598.
by eqvinox 10mo ago
> SSH is explicitly designed to allow unauthenticated users to do a whole lot of things I'm sorry, what?
599.
by eqvinox 10mo ago
Uh, you know you can scan UDP ports just fine, right? Hosts reply with an ICMP destination unreachable / port unreachable (3/3 in IPv4, 1/4 in IPv6) if the port is closed. Discarding packets won't send that ICMP error.
600.
by eqvinox 10mo ago
> I am not sure why people are so afraid of exposing ports. Similar here, I only build & run services that I trust myself enough to run in a secure manner by themselves. I still have a VPN for some things, but everything is built to

More ›