221–230 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple TV shows promotions for apps in the top row. These are ads. They are often shows the user isn't interested in, but the service is interested in pushing.
I'm pretty sure thats a feature for any app you put in the top row. If you have Netflix in that row it will show you recommended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> __and information about other devices connected to the same network__ They may also be doing more nefarious things, but this might just mean it watches for UPNP and other announcement-broadcast messages on your network (like, say, mdns).
The rest of their "Haha, you bought one of our devices, all your data is ours!" policy doesn't give me much cause to give them the benefit of the doubt here. At least some people [0] have reported their Roku device scanning their network, which is explicitly allowed in that policy. Though you can probably do a lot of it passively without leaving those annoying traces. Once they've granted themselves permissions to do…
Not just no, but hell no. I would 100% interpret that behavior as the prelude to an attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is but it'd require a special device at each customer location. CG-NAT (a.k.a. double NAT) is probably what they did because it only requires a couple of centralized boxes then the rest is deployed like a normal dual stack network and your average home Netgear router works with it out of the box. NAT in the other direction (i.e. IPv6 local client, IPv4 remote host) is easier, and I'd be very surprised if they d…
Sorry flop the numbers. I meant public V6, private V4 nat.
What makes no sense in 2023 is to have an IPv6-only network. That is liable not to work. Someone will eventually bring some old device that won't be able to connect.
I have a separate WiFi AP just for my guests. It only goes to the internet and does not route to my LAN at all. It supports IPv4 and IPv6 so everyone's covered.
I do this because my LAN is encrypted and it's inconvenient to have to issue new certs to anybody stopping by just so they can reach the internet. But as a bonus, I don't have to worry about accommodating whatever oddball hardware my guests may have.
I recommend this practice. It works really well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the main barrier to IPV6 is just that people don't want to re-learn anything. I disagree, actually. I think the main barrier is that networking folks have been pretty bad at explaining this to non-networking folks. IPv6 isn't exactly simple to understand. I'm a reasonably network-savvy guy, and I'm sure that I understand less about IPv6 than I think I do. I just don't know what parts I'm not understanding properly,…
It's terrible isn't it. I'm not a network specialist yet have a reasonable enough understanding of ipv4, nat etc that I think my home network is, at least ok. Can look at ip addresses in logs and know what machines most of them are etc. I get tired of this "I'm an expert you're an idiot" trope that comes up about it. Here on this damn website you have people who hack kernel, people who manage massive databases, peopl…
The end result is that they will continue to object to the thing, but won't raise their objections to the experts anymore. And why would they? Nothing good came from it the first time.
It turns what should be a cooperative relationship into a combative one. I see this happen in pretty much every discussion of IPv6 around, including this one.
The other issue is that the subject matter experts rarely actually explain anything. They just toss out acronyms and buzzwords and consider the matter corrected. But it's not -- they're talking as if their audience is another subject matter expert, when it's usually not. Acronyms and buzzwords mean little to them.
And telling them to "google it" likewise does little good. The audience isn't a subject matter expert, doesn't want to be, and shouldn't have to be. If IPv6 really is so complex that you have to be an expert in order to use and configure it properly, then isn't that a problem with IPv6?
My assumption is that's not the case (but I'm not sure on this point), but instead, the experts are failing to actually teach people about this stuff.
In the end, I blame the rollout of IPv6 itself. Exactly zero attention and effort was paid to evangelizing and educating people about it. There was no gradual rollout plan put into place and encouraged.
The IPv6 rollout effort failed to do the things that are necessary to facilitate a shift of this magnitude. This makes the whole thing very confusing and leads people who aren't elbows deep in the topic to lean toward "I don't feel that I can do this safely, so it's better that I don't do it at all". Which is not an unreasonable stance.
The tragedy is that it all could have gone so much better than it has. It could have been a thing everyone unified about rather than a thing that is rapidly becoming a kind of holy war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you in your other thread don't trust the ISP device, then don't trust NAT on your ISP device either There is no logic there. firewall configuration is much harder to secure than NAT configuration.
> There is no logic there. firewall configuration is much harder to secure than NAT configuration. Disagree. Just the XML parsing logic required for uPnP alone is more complex than a basic firewall implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's not the way TCP was designed in the first place. Instead you're used to hack on top of hack to make IPv4 not explode in a ball of flame there are far more billions of end points than IP addresses. The thing is you really don't realize how shit your network experiences are because of this. Everyone is just attempting to tunnel more services via HTTP/HTTPS and the particular fun problems that entails rat…
> to make IPv4 not explode in a ball of flame there are far more billions of end points than IP addresses. But in my LAN, there is no IP address exhaustion. I have orders of magnitude more IP addresses than I'll ever use. IP address exhaustion applies to the internet at large. I'm not talking about that. In the internet at large, IPv6 has to happen. In my LAN, I don't see a need for it. I can route between the IPv4 e…
As long as you never VPN into or out of another network whose administrator thought the same thing. But yes.
> And because I have IPv4-only hardware on my LAN, I need an IPv4 segment to support it at the very least. So why not keep the entire LAN IPv4?
v6 uplink is going to increasingly be cheaper and/or faster than v4 uplink (as with the issue in the article), so presumably you'll want to run v6 on your LAN at least for the devices you game/stream from (and sooner or later there will be v6-only services that you want to connect to). I would think that any device not supporting IPv6 is so obsolete/unsupported as to be dangerous to connect to the internet, so you already need to deal with having two distinct segments on your LAN. But sure, if you've got good v4 uplink at a reasonable cost then no need to migrate yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no logic there. firewall configuration is much harder to secure than NAT configuration. Disagree. Just the XML parsing logic required for uPnP alone is more complex than a basic firewall implementation.
uPnP seems a distraction from the topic. It's not necessary for networking to network -- my LAN intentionally does not support it at all. It is necessary for certain use cases, of course, but it's not mandatory in a network in the general case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple TV shows promotions for apps in the top row. These are ads. They are often shows the user isn't interested in, but the service is interested in pushing.
I'm pretty sure thats a feature for any app you put in the top row. If you have Netflix in that row it will show you recommended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's terrible isn't it. I'm not a network specialist yet have a reasonable enough understanding of ipv4, nat etc that I think my home network is, at least ok. Can look at ip addresses in logs and know what machines most of them are etc. I get tired of this "I'm an expert you're an idiot" trope that comes up about it. Here on this damn website you have people who hack kernel, people who manage massive databases, peopl…
The hostility is what I think is more damaging than anything else. When people have an objection to something that is resulting from them misunderstanding the thing, telling them they're stupid, lazy, or even malicious just makes them disengage (and correctly so). The end result is that they will continue to object to the thing, but won't raise their objections to the experts anymore. And why would they? Nothing good…
"You're gonna move your home network to ipv6, here's what you need to know to not f&^k up hard and get pwned" At the level like we know for ipv4.
Right now, I actively disable ipv6 in devices on my network because I don't have a clue about how it all works. Am I making something addressable from the public internet? Am leaking every mac address I have? So much more I'm sure I havent even considered.
Then when you look at ipv6 tutorials you see nuts things like each octet containing a zero value can be shortened to just a single zero :00000000: becomes :0: ok fine, but consecutive octets of zero are removed so :00000000:00000000: becomes :: swallowing a delimiter so programming this stuff you can't even just split on the delim and /know/ what octet is where. Now maybe theres a good reason for that but where is the explanation? Not in any of the tutorials that have to explain how this stuff works rather than something, you know, useful. As presented it's pure additional, utterly meaningless, learning overhead.
So yeah. I'm too stupid to run ipv6 and I know it. But I'm not nearly as stupid as those who claim it's ready for prime time because it damn well isn't.
Anyone thinks it is. Link the document with a time estimate on running a home network with ipv6 knowing what you need to know (and know already for ipv4) to not do something idiotic.
In this crowd, we'll learn stuff just because it looks cool and you can't reach us? Get outta here.