Viewing profile — Dagger2
Dagger2
HN member- Joined
- Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 8:05 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 668
- Public activity
- 770 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About Dagger2
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #49111134
But v6 _is_ backwards compatible though? It's got dual stack, Teredo, 6to4, 6rd, 6over4, ISATAP, 6in4/4in6, NAT64/DNS64, 464xlat, DS-lite, MAP-T/E, 4rd, LW4over6... how is this not…
-
comment
Comment #49026661
All you've done there is reinvent v6 with a combination of dual stack, NAT64 and 6to4, plus add a flag day. You haven't fixed any of the problems involved in deploying v6, and you …
-
comment
Comment #48986439
SLAAC-generated addresses will stay the same so long as the prefix and your MAC address stay the same, so there should be no need to do static leases. Also... service discovery. Ne…
-
comment
Comment #48720899
People running servers don't seem to be reliably capable of making sure that either pMTUd works or isn't needed on their network, so... it is indeed broken on random servers. We've…
-
comment
Comment #48654406
That's basically no burden at all. If we cut the address length down to increase throughput, we would get a one-time increase of about 0.8% -- but consider how much faster Internet…
-
comment
Comment #48647293
There were always expected to be v4 hosts on the Internet effectively indefinitely. That's not a failure condition for v6. "There are a couple of v4-only hosts out there somewhere"…
-
comment
Comment #48647240
Except you are, because all the same work needs to be done. > You can use the 8-byte addresses earlier if you want You can't have both this and "The 8-byte phase only starts when v…
-
comment
Comment #48647235
$ wget -4 https://github.com/HackerNews/API Resolving github.com (github.com)... 140.82.114.4 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|140.82.114.4|:443... failed: Network is unreacha…
-
comment
Comment #48646023
I think the span would be about the same, or smaller even, if you limited yourself to a granularity of 4 bits for v6. Allocations are often rounded to 4 bits in v6 because it corre…
-
comment
Comment #48635946
Do I? I don't have v4 on this machine and I can reach GitHub, so that appears to be untrue. Also GitHub would need to continue having v4 so that v4 users could reach it, so it's un…
-
comment
Comment #48634667
Let's assume that's true... so what? That doesn't tell us anything about how long migrations like this normally take.
-
comment
Comment #48634307
Windows, Linux, OSX, Android and iOS all ship with v6 enabled by default out of the box, so it's already turned on without you needing to think about it. You have to deliberately g…
-
comment
Comment #48625526
People are at work during the week, and work networks have a lower average deployment of v6 then home networks do. As evidence, you can also see the impact of holidays and COVID-19…
-
comment
Comment #48625505
If we're talking tangible, real-world threats in existing ISPs, then NAT is doing nothing to protect you. In fact it's doing the exact opposite, because without NAT you wouldn't be…
-
comment
Comment #48625476
Google's stats claim that it's 10-20ms for many countries, for example both the US and Canada show the latency impact of v6 as being -10ms. This is per round trip too -- between th…
-
comment
Comment #48625454
I don't have to imagine, because that's how things are right now for the billions of people using v6, and it's fine.
-
comment
Comment #48625425
I'm in Europe and I use a tunnel from HE for v6. I feel like that's something I would have noticed if it was as widespread as you make it sound.
-
comment
Comment #48625415
Try `ip link set mtu 1280 dev eth0` (or equivalent for your OS). pMTUd breakage exists on v6 just like it exists on v4, and requires workarounds just like it does on v4. I get the …
-
comment
Comment #48625400
I've heard plenty of accounts from people (and these were techy people even, not just the ones who only go to Facebook and think that's the Internet) who lost v4 and didn't even re…
-
comment
Comment #48625332
I have no v4 on this machine. I'd disable the v4 stack on it if that was a thing Linux could do, but as it stands it's just sitting there doing nothing. The thing you're claiming i…
-
comment
Comment #48625327
You have to do that with range bans in v4 too, since you have no idea how big the pool of addresses a user can pull from is -- and with CGNAT in the picture you're kind of doomed t…
-
comment
Comment #48625286
Data exfil is basically impossible to detect/block with IPv6? What? No. It's no easier or harder than it is in v4. I'd also question the Rube-Goldberg-ness part, given how straight…
-
comment
Comment #48625231
What ridiculous overdimensioning? L2 addresses are 64 bits, and L3 has to be bigger than L2 because L3 acts as an aggregation layer over L3. From staring at RFC 3194, I'd say the m…
-
comment
Comment #48625116
If my firewall logs are representative, about 2%.
-
comment
Comment #48625052
Why the double standard? v6 already gives you what you're asking for here: you can turn it on without thinking about it, but actually using the extra addresses from it requires rec…