zadikian

6 ms·

31.
by zadikian 6mo ago
If you want to start using v6 before you're sure that every host supports it. But this isn't strictly needed, could just rely on something in DNS telling you the host supports it (I'm not saying AAAA records cause idk if you&
32.
by zadikian 6mo ago
No, the idea is you can turn v6 on/off, but doing so only changes the packet format and nothing else at first. There's no separate place to configure v6-specific settings because there are none. You use the same address, routes, D
33.
by zadikian 6mo ago
AI never had goalposts, it means programming meant to look like human behavior. Like AI opponents in old video games.
34.
by zadikian 6mo ago
It's a common misconception because the thing is called "full self driving."
35.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Yeah and UTF-8 shouldn't be taken for granted. I always wondered why there's still UTF-16 in so many places, even Swift strings (apparently changed in v5)... It's cause that was the natural replacement for UCS-2, which for ce
36.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Those are regions that have a lot of v6 support alongside v4, not v6-only.
37.
by zadikian 6mo ago
If you look at the reasons GitHub for instance doesn't support ipv6, it's a different set of problems from what cell carriers had to deal with.
38.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Do they own such an address, as in, a packet sent by someone on another ISP to that address will actually reach my ISP's router over v6? Not talking about translations that use v4. If they do, I've never seen them actually give it
39.
by zadikian 6mo ago
It requires the router to support v6. If you want, could do an approach kinda like "happy eyeballs" where you try both.
40.
by zadikian 6mo ago
There are lots of services I can't send v6 to, not because some router in the middle only understands v4 but because the service operator decided not to deal with v6.
41.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Yeah we're talking about the same thing. So my v4 is 70.94.201.31. My ISP didn't also give me 2002:70.94.201.31 or whatever.
42.
by zadikian 6mo ago
If/when everyone is forced to leave ipv4 due to address+port exhaustion, it's possible that ipv6 isn't the replacement.
43.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Indeed doing it this way would keep the fragmentation, or at least delay fixing it. That's what these articles always overlook, the goal of ipv6 wasn't to just add more bits, it was also to defrag the routes. I think instead of 1.
44.
by zadikian 6mo ago
At least at first, you wouldn't, you'd embed all of them. Cloudflare has 1.1.1.1, so they get 1.1.1.1:: too.
45.
by zadikian 6mo ago
You can, but the recommendation is no NAT with v6. Most routers don't even support it.
46.
by zadikian 6mo ago
"Who are all these people who don't like using DNS?" "It's always DNS," and mDNS is finicky too. At least, not reliable enough that I can never look at addresses again.
47.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Java bent a lot to accommodate. There are lambdas and records which violate the old OOP rules, and now virtual threads which were sorely missing for things like web backends.
48.
by zadikian 6mo ago
The downside of publicly-addressable hosts is actually acknowledged in things like RFC 6092, but REC-49 is that routers provide a clear firewalling option that MAY be default-allow.
49.
by zadikian 6mo ago
I want something:x.x.x.x to get routed to me over v6 if I had x.x.x.x in v4, as the default and recommended way of contacting an ipv6 host, without needing additional config or middleboxes. Neither NAT64 or NAT46 do this really, and they&#x
50.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Yeah that's what I've read too. Just haven't gotten around to trying them. You've probably already read the Postgres docs on hash indexes, but just in case, it says "hash indexes may not be suitable for tables with
51.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Despite the lack of incentive for some, it's gotten pretty far. Pretty much every network device and host supports it in a minimal way. It's just that people/corps don't want to switch because it introduces a lot of risk
52.
by zadikian 6mo ago
I've clarified under another comment what I meant by that
53.
by zadikian 6mo ago
A router messing up IPv4 NAT would make it unusable for v4. My router still works with v6, just doesn't support an optional extension of it. (Idk if the v6 spec actually says DHCP is optional, but it de facto is because slaac isn'
54.
by zadikian 6mo ago
The defaults determine what like 95% of users end up actually using, even if they have their own preference. Like you said, even if I wanted to use DHCP6, Android won't use it. My router also doesn't support it.
55.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Copy-paste the v4 blocks into v6 space under a common prefix, let's say 4::. Routers and software add ipv6 support (as they already have), but you only use 4::. Now once a user wants to switch, it looks the same. I'm still on NAT
56.
by zadikian 6mo ago
I disagree that it would've been just as hard anyway. The people who say "I just wanted v4 with more bits" have a point that most of these arguments completely ignore, but this one touches on it: Actually, we tried that:
57.
by zadikian 6mo ago
You can do it, it's just not default, which does matter too
58.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Last time I almost used a hash index in Postgres, I learned it was an incomplete feature and not crash-safe yet. This was v9.3? At that same time, MySQL had them and they were ok to use. Later that got fixed, but I haven't tried again
59.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Presumably, how ever you mark a version as latest would also be how you mark one as compromised. IPFS files are immutable and keyed by hash. But this seems like overengineering.
60.
by zadikian 6mo ago
Unless something has changed since I last did this, the app's server initiating the apns doesn't encrypt using some public key for the destination. So no e2ee at that layer. But you could encrypt the payload and have the app decry

More ›