Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was briefly turned on years ago and then turned off. I guess it broke the website for those behind corporate MITM boxes.
There's a lot of websites out there that does TLS 1.3. Surely not an issue for MITM boxes? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to access much...
Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
71–80 of 396 posts
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#72[flagged]
The next few months may be hard for you. AWS will start charging for ipv4 on February 1st, so it’s likely that either a mass migration is coming or prices for many services will increase accordingly to pass that cost along to customers.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Published guidance says they're meant to give out at least a /56. I don't know that making autoallocation work on smaller subnets would help with this problem - ISPs that currently give out the smallest possible subnet would probably just switch to whatever the new smallest possible subnet was.
There probably is a way to ask my ISP for a larger block, but I think it would be nice to be able to subnet a /64 regardless.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.
Just download the repo as a zip file and manually upload it as an extension to your browser.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.
IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
There probably is a way to ask my ISP for a larger block, but I think it would be nice to be able to subnet a /64 regardless.
CIDR and the resulting address space fragmentation was the problem that IPv6 was originally meant to solve; allowing splitting into random-sized subnets makes routing more complex and worse. And if you made the routable part of an IPv6 address longer than 64 bits then that makes the routing much more compute-intensive. 64 bits in the local part of the address is sort of overkill, but a 128 bit address isn't really an…
Collisions are very unlikely, and a quick ARP packet should detect them if they do happen.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I could see larger addresses increasing latency ???
Several additional bytes over millions of packets where the data frame is ~10bytes seems potentially significant. I'm less interested in HTTP
On the internet, most links are faster than 1 Gbps and most paths are shorter than 100 hops, so that's a conservative estimate.
If you're sending lots of 10-byte payloads, then IPv6 requires (40+10)/(20+10)=166% as much network capacity, but are you really filling up an expensive link with VoIP traffic?
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#78Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.
IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Published guidance says they're meant to give out at least a /56. I don't know that making autoallocation work on smaller subnets would help with this problem - ISPs that currently give out the smallest possible subnet would probably just switch to whatever the new smallest possible subnet was.
There probably is a way to ask my ISP for a larger block, but I think it would be nice to be able to subnet a /64 regardless.