171–180 of 265 posts
Worthy thread to ask: is there such a thing as a white label IP camera (or similar) with a supported open firmware? Not asking for open source, but something close to plug and play that nonetheless has a way of stripping the rootfs as desired for bespoke use in a manufacturer-supported way. I have looked around before but I only found genuinely dev-oriented kits that weren't even in a shell, and crazy priced. edit: s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The length isn’t the only thing that makes the ergonomics suck. The lack of backwards compatibility sucks. The “you don’t have to use NAT anymore” is great theoretically, but it renders a lot of casual network maintainers mental model of network security obsolete without a clear and simple alternative. The shorthand is not intuitive (though it’s not CIDR-level counterintuitive). Really, there’s way too much about wor…
you fling around words like "network maintainers" quite casually, dont you? :) its really extremely simple, just dont NAT, is that really so hard? just because you dont NAT, doesnt mean you have to let the traffic pass through, that is also an extremely simple concept, no?
There are a shitload of people who maintain networks, like home or small business networks, that aren’t network administrators. Most of those people are not prepared to have their Chinese WiFi cameras, myriad smart appliances, and heck, even home computers easily individually accessible from the internet. It’s an extremely simple concept, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Venn diagram like a 6th grade boy's graffiti of boobs.
Just as a pedantic aside, people often use Venn diagram when they mean Euler diagram. A Venn diagram always has the overlapping circles and use shading or labeling describe the set relation. Euler diagrams let the circles describe the relation so two non intersecting sets in a Venn diagram might share the left circle green, the right blue and leave the intersection blank or grey. An Euler diagram will have two disjoi…
B. I love that Euler is pronounced “oiler” which is North American slang for a drunk. I’ve been trying to find that constant my whole adult life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally impossible to avoid long addresses being long or short addresses running out. One of those is a worse problem.
The length isn’t the only thing that makes the ergonomics suck. The lack of backwards compatibility sucks. The “you don’t have to use NAT anymore” is great theoretically, but it renders a lot of casual network maintainers mental model of network security obsolete without a clear and simple alternative. The shorthand is not intuitive (though it’s not CIDR-level counterintuitive). Really, there’s way too much about wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt any endpoints are entirely ipv6. So it seems like it helps ISPs and large networks router… but they never had problems with address space running out at the high levels and almost all likely need to support v4 anyhow. I think it’s been long enough to be honest that ipv6 was a spectacular failure by complicating an already complicated system into something no one actually asked for. No human said “hey, network…
I'm largely with you... I would think they'd take the IPv4 block and have a direct/virtual block that just extends it to more addresses... so it could be an IPv4 NAT or IPv6 direct. like 1.1.1.1/192.168.45.4 ... for a router that understands IPv6, that's the direct route to the sub-network, otherwise it will have to use IPv4, and the subnet route is treated as NAT and otherwise isolated. To me, that would make more s…
I assume you meant 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x -- (and 172.16.x.x?), ie the standard subnets for home router-modems (which are non-routing and so can't be used on the internet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you fling around words like "network maintainers" quite casually, dont you? :) its really extremely simple, just dont NAT, is that really so hard? just because you dont NAT, doesnt mean you have to let the traffic pass through, that is also an extremely simple concept, no?
Fling it around? There are a shitload of people who maintain networks, like home or small business networks, that aren’t network administrators. Most of those people are not prepared to have their Chinese WiFi cameras, myriad smart appliances, and heck, even home computers easily individually accessible from the internet. It’s an extremely simple concept, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also know of a company who does this. The reason in their case is they act as a network concentrator, bridging hundreds of client IP spaces, so this helps them avoid conflicts with their own space without having to NAT constantly. There is still a lot of NAT for the more common ranges.
If they converted to IPv6, they could easily have a globally unique address space. Real globally unique, not probabilistic.
When I cared, I found out that a lot of OBD-II dongles shipped with the same MAC, which gave you access to everything on a bunch of websites. You can curse the storm, but the wind will come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The length isn’t the only thing that makes the ergonomics suck. The lack of backwards compatibility sucks. The “you don’t have to use NAT anymore” is great theoretically, but it renders a lot of casual network maintainers mental model of network security obsolete without a clear and simple alternative. The shorthand is not intuitive (though it’s not CIDR-level counterintuitive). Really, there’s way too much about wor…
Instead of forwarding a port to a specific machine on the NAT page, you allow incoming traffic on that port to that machine on the firewall page. You'll want to add a stable IP to the host (in addition to the SLAAC rotating privacy IP if it already has one. One interface can have multiple addresses). That's pretty much it, except now you can allow the same port to multiple machines, where previously you could only fo…
Suppose I've got a machine on the LAN and I want to open it up to the world on port 1025 with IPv6.
This can't happen with SLAAC? It has to be a new address? Does the ISP pick the prefix for that address? And one can't centrally-manage that address (because people keep saying that DHCPv6 isn't worth stuffing around with)? What happens when the router fails over to a backup ISP? How does dynamic DNS fit in with all of this?
Those questions don't really exist with IPv4, wherein: One can just set up a static DHCP assignment, forward port 1025, and [optionally] set up dynamic DNS -- and this all happens within the confines of a single home router.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you fling around words like "network maintainers" quite casually, dont you? :) its really extremely simple, just dont NAT, is that really so hard? just because you dont NAT, doesnt mean you have to let the traffic pass through, that is also an extremely simple concept, no?
Fling it around? There are a shitload of people who maintain networks, like home or small business networks, that aren’t network administrators. Most of those people are not prepared to have their Chinese WiFi cameras, myriad smart appliances, and heck, even home computers easily individually accessible from the internet. It’s an extremely simple concept, no?
And home routers have firewalls that block inbound connections by default -- including with no-NAT IPv6.