Post AsR2wPBTazkdpVfcYa by famfo@chaos.social
(DIR) More posts by famfo@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AsM1NUC7u5C3UPxaiG by famfo@chaos.social
2025-03-23T14:50:57Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
I'm not even mad at CGNAT anymore, I'm just really mad at the IPv6 adoption and missing resources around it.For most of my friends who did not take the deep dive into computers and especially computer networks, an IP address is four octets containing funny numbers.A friend of mine got really confused when I mentioned that there is another IP version: IPv6 (which of course did NOT work for the use case we were trying to achieve: making proprietary software talk with eachother).
(DIR) Post #AsM1RbKRJyMMm2oKZc by fossdd@chaos.social
2025-03-23T15:02:47Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@famfo this is so fucking sad. like ipv6 has been around for almost forever, but in most usecases its still considered second-tier. heck even in the current curriculum of my abitur we still learn mainly classfull!!! ipv4 ("obsolete network addressing architecture used in the Internet from 1981 until the introduction of CIDR in 1993"). how is this possible? im writing my exams in two months and i wont get points if i assume classless networking??we're fucking stuck in 1993
(DIR) Post #AsM1sjTT8yztr7yIAS by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-03-23T18:20:51.559334Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fossdd @famfo Reminds me of how often people refer to OSI layers… even though OSI was dead on arrival and TCP/IP was the one that actually worked.
(DIR) Post #AsPr84PxEn9II5HJbs by muxelplexer@larkspur.one
2025-03-25T14:33:23.310441Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @famfo @fossdd but isnt the issue with TCP/IP the combination of OSI layer 1 & 2? Not like anyone will care about OSI layer 5/6 these days either but we've been told thats why both are still around battling around
(DIR) Post #AsPr85h0UsNqFGGRpQ by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-03-25T14:39:07.075500Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@muxelplexer @famfo @fossdd Except there's no such thing as layer 1/2/…/5/6 on TCP/IP.You can put whatever you want in-between when it comes to TCP/IP, in any-amount, after all HTTPS didn't need a protocol change for HTTP.And it's not just in TCP payloads, which layer exactly is PPPoE? :D
(DIR) Post #AsPrbD4U8sfBWm8BWK by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-03-25T14:44:34.000759Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fossdd @famfo You need to be actually somewhat competent to understand IPv6 and it seems many people are so incompetent they go disable IPv6 and use IPv4 only.
(DIR) Post #AsPtPA7fTmQioe0EdM by muxelplexer@larkspur.one
2025-03-25T15:01:29.460066Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @famfo @fossdd Except there’s no such thing as layer 1/2/…/5/6 on TCP/IP. Yeah - they aren’t numbered. There is still Link/Internet/Transport/Application Layers though. Call them what you want but imo that’s a bit pedantic lol.Yes - but that only applies from the Transport layer upwards - as it does with OSI. In OSI we just ignore Session/Presentation since they are obsoleted. Once you go downwards you have abstracted a physical electrical connection together with a link-layer MAC connection - which is not beneficial when working on those lower layers.PPPoE is encapsulation of Layer 2 frames in Layer 3 packets in OSI terms, which is nothing too mind bending.((sorry if i come off as a bit annoyed but OSI layer model is more than just a reference for programmers and i may have PTSD on the layer systems from Networking classes :p ))
(DIR) Post #AsPtPBBxVJSM8F1Axc by muxelplexer@larkspur.one
2025-03-25T15:03:09.250422Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @famfo @fossdd generally you can just use either and make the best of both worlds by acknowledging the OSI split between physical/link and the TCP/IP amalgation of application layer - but in terms of naming the layers imo OSI is superior
(DIR) Post #AsPtPCHfRZcJWEhFUu by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-03-25T15:04:40.433173Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@muxelplexer @famfo @fossdd I do think there's a bit of value in doing the difference between physical and internet, but you don't need OSI for this.OSI can be left out with X.25 and the other protocols it had at the time.
(DIR) Post #AsPtlQPRbecZhOvuvw by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-03-25T15:08:44.602951Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@muxelplexer @famfo @fossdd And I think trying to wrangle the TCP/IP and somewhat related protocols into OSI layers (be them numbers or names, doesn't matters) is trying to make round pegs fit into a square hole.
(DIR) Post #AsPuTEslpBsYgrXgie by muxelplexer@larkspur.one
2025-03-25T15:10:19.854387Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @famfo @fossdd i can get that sentinment - it probably feels natural to me since that was how our networking prof got us to layer the networking (coming from a infra/administration background). Ignoring Layer 2 is just not possible when you operate with non-multi-layer switches (i.e. good ol switches)
(DIR) Post #AsPuTFnqOzX5XsFGgC by muxelplexer@larkspur.one
2025-03-25T15:12:10.662460Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @famfo @fossdd also on a side note: wasn’t it technically the DARPA networking model instead of TCP/IP or do i have brainworms?
(DIR) Post #AsPuTGUNqpYnfo9EzA by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-03-25T15:16:37.134619Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@muxelplexer @famfo @fossdd Not good at pre-RFC history of the internet but as far as I can tell DARPA was even older than that (I know there was UUCP and NCP).And OSI (which is from ISO) would mean new protocols, and as far I can tell, it failed to actually get deployed outside of labs.While TCP/IP managed to just encapsulate older protocols (as seen by it supporting the dinosaur that is FTP).
(DIR) Post #AsR2wPBTazkdpVfcYa by famfo@chaos.social
2025-03-25T15:02:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki the only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the representation of the bits and that one is 32 bit and the other 128.In no way does someone need to be "more competent" to use IPv6, I am fully convinced that it is just a lack of resources around it, be it educational, transferal from existing IPv4 knowledge or the general rollout on bigger websites.
(DIR) Post #AsR2wQHXVwCBEbVye8 by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-03-26T04:26:19.892688Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@famfo There are differences, there is diffences in subnetting and different configuration required.With IPv4, most stuff is already automatically configured for you, thus you usually don't need to do much to configure an IPv4 router, but for some bizarre reason, IPv6 routers need manual configuration usually.
(DIR) Post #AsR9NpM10IW6XR3i5Y by gentoobro@shitpost.cloud
2025-03-26T05:38:34.537054Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Most software has to be modified specifically to handle IPv6. There is some stupid wrapper shit that kinda works a little bit sometimes for some apps, but you can't type an IPv6 address into software that only supports IPv4.
(DIR) Post #AsRCzxuturBLxgFmiG by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-03-26T06:19:03.201730Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gentoobro @famfo If you're typing in a IPv6 address in (that's not :: or ::1), you're doing something wrong.There's something called domains or GNUnet.getaddrinfo(), connect(), bind() and listen() should have been modified to support IPv6 without needing specific configuration, or at least be compatible if you just change AF_INET to AF_INET6, but noooo.
(DIR) Post #AsT6Dp3JMLhhA0lfFo by lispi314@udongein.xyz
2025-03-27T03:54:42.096351Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @gentoobro @famfo Domains introduce an authority problem in their most common form.They also introduce authentication problems as it is mostly not used in conjunction with key-addressing.Effectively, user-configured petnames (ref: Zooko's Triangle) and key addressing as Yggdrassil does is the only sane way to communicate at the application level (yes the implication is that there's no sane way to use IPv4 as it cannot encode a sufficient key).The keys need not be encoded in IPv6, the underlying transport layer may be abstracted. But applications should not concern themselves with routing details (unless they are specifically overlay network programs, of course).
(DIR) Post #AsT6Dq8JLFIUVo7Aga by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-03-27T04:12:31.174006Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lispi314 @famfo @gentoobro Which is why I mentioned GNUnet domains.