hairyplanter

6 ms·

1.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
I use tayga.
2.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
This does not contradict what I said. Every Debian release is (and will be) an LTS release.
3.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
I have fully implemented IPv6 in my home network. I have even implemented an IPv6-Only network. It fully works, including accessing IPv4 only websites like github.com via DNS64 and NAT64 at my router. The only practically useful thing about
4.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
Debian doesn't have LTS and non-LTS. Debian has Stable. That's it.
5.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
This is interesting. If you only had IPv4, you’d block a ddos by filtering ip ranges. If some of those ranges were CGNat, you’d be cutting access to possibly millions of innocent addresses or even entire countries. As IPv4 addresses become
6.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
“640KB ought to be enough for anyone”
7.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
I wrote one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40603777
8.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
EUI-64 uses the NIC MAC to derive an address. Linux by default uses it, and it's fine for servers. There are other more privacy sensitive ways to generate obfuscated addresses. But none of these matter, because RFC 4941 says a new rand
9.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
Step 2 answer: To set up ULA, just assign ULA you want to your LAN interface. Default radvd.conf will now advertise that ULA prefix to the lan, and your hosts will auto configure. Are they static? Yes, in the sense that they don't chan
10.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
RA message can specify a DNS server. Mine specifies the router's ULA, which is effectively static, and it runs unbounded.
11.
Show HN: A Short IPv6 Guide for Home IPv4 Admins(gist.github.com)
69 points by hairyplanter 2y ago|53 comments
12.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
I haven’t seen one. Openwrt seems to do the right thing out of the box, but that’s not that helpful in setting up your own and learning on the way. Maybe I will write one this weekend and make a hn post.
13.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
My experience is the opposite!
14.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
ULA is still the right solution here. ULA would let you maintain your internal lan with custom subnets and DNS even if you switch carriers or use multiple carriers. No need to update your internal DNS servers for ULA. If you're running
15.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
As browsers don't like link local addresses in the address bar, ULA is still better.
16.
by hairyplanter 2y ago
> or just bite the bullet and use ULA. This is the proper ipv6 solution. With ipv6, one ethernet interface is _supposed_ to have multiple addresses. You wouldn't want your lan routing to stop working when your ISP goes down, right?
17.
by hairyplanter 3y ago
I was thinking “hey, I bet it would be pretty easy to write something like this in Go”. And of course it’s written in Go!
18.
by hairyplanter 3y ago
In your playground example, if you print the capacity and the length before and after “re-extension”, it becomes clear what happened. In fact, accessing item 5 after reduction gives a size panic, where as accessing item 6 after re-extension