Post 3255139 by feld@bikeshed.party
(DIR) More posts by feld@bikeshed.party
(DIR) Post #3243603 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T05:07:02Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Neither Hushmail, Protonmail nor Fastmail send emails to #IPv6-only addresses.Major fail.
(DIR) Post #3243727 by usul@mamot.fr
2019-01-22T07:41:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan Indeed might be worth filling request. Is spam the reason ?
(DIR) Post #3253062 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T14:07:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@usul Would IPv6 result in spam?
(DIR) Post #3253094 by usul@mamot.fr
2019-01-22T14:24:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan It's way easier to have 100s of Ips to spam from over ipv6 than it is over ipv4. Fighting spam is more complex over v6 unfortunately.
(DIR) Post #3255139 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-22T15:30:39.408602Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan Fastmail's SMTP is IPv4 only and I think sending mail to v6-only addresses is dumb because they're unable to communicate with the rest of the non-v6 world anyway.
(DIR) Post #3256242 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T15:59:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@usul If they're solving spam by blocking specific IPs, then they should just block the entire /64 or /32.
(DIR) Post #3256613 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T15:58:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld I heard about IPv6 20 years ago. By this point major providers are well-past due to implement it.The option of IPv6-only should not be a question anymore
(DIR) Post #3256614 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-22T16:19:14.881045Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan yeah me too, and I've been using IPv6 since at least 2004. But the reality is that IPv6-only services are not gonna happen soon. Dual stack is a requirement if you don't have a NAT64 or something to help you reach the IPv4-only internet
(DIR) Post #3257849 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T16:19:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld While I agree...its been 20 years!!
(DIR) Post #3257850 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-22T17:06:39.089998Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan IPv6 was not even rolled up into a single RFC until 2017RFC 8200https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200We can't deploy a moving target. IPv6 from 1999 is quite different from IPv6 in 2019
(DIR) Post #3259453 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T17:53:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld hmm, I see your point, but would change change your fundamental deployment strategy?
(DIR) Post #3259454 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-22T17:54:49.789043Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan it has been a moving target so hardware vendors couldn't design equipment that supported forwarding of IPv6 in hardware. Lots of network gear on the internet still processes IPv6 in software only.
(DIR) Post #3259629 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T17:58:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld Ahh, that makes sense - one that as an end user like me.I haven't seen the changes to the protocol in quite some time. What specifically would cause issues?
(DIR) Post #3259630 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-22T18:00:28.290632Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan I know people that know those answers, but that's beyond my understanding of the internal operation of modern switches and routers
(DIR) Post #3259736 by farhan@bsd.network
2019-01-22T18:01:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld If its at the hardware level, I suppose that isn't common knowledge. Thank you VERY much for this insight, I figured it was purely a business decision of customers not demanding it.btw, what is bikeshed.party?
(DIR) Post #3259737 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-22T18:03:00.788106Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@farhan just an inside joke about bikesheds / FreeBSDhttp://bikeshed.org