Timeline for Would it be possible for Stack Overflow to be accessible over IPv6?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2013 at 17:39 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | @Azendale Anyone who's ever programmed in C already knows that K&R is tricky. | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 19:41 | comment | added | Azendale |
@RichardGadsden how about 57AC:07E8:F703 or 57AC:07E8:F103 or even 57AC:71:07E8:F703 -- K & R is tricky!
|
|
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:27 | history | bounty ended | Arjan | ||
| Jun 9, 2011 at 16:39 | comment | added | nealmcb | Good data! But Peer1 just finally blogged about getting their own web site an ipv6 address for ipv6 day, and many blog posts suggest they don't offer ipv6 to customers yet, at least not to small ones. E.g. Peer1 not doing AAAA records yet. I wouldn't think SE would want to operate over a tunnel, though in the short term that might be ok. But hopefully this all won't take too much longer..... | |
| Apr 12, 2011 at 11:44 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | @Arjan yes - I expect that a lot of ISPs will ignore that and use /64s for private residences. The interesting one is going to be mobile phones. Will they get allocated a /64 (for tethering) or a /128? If they get /128s then they're going to be practically unblockable by IP address. | |
| Apr 12, 2011 at 11:41 | comment | added | Arjan | @Richard, my consumer grade subscription has a /48 block. It seems that matches an Arin proposal: All customers get one /48 unless they can show that they need more than 65k subnets (though it also states If you have lots of consumer customers you may want to assign /56s to private residence sites). But still then, indeed: SE would get few requests from my /48 (and only to some SE sites), so SE might guess right. | |
| Apr 12, 2011 at 11:16 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | @Arjan You don't know but you can guess relatively sensibly: a /64 and if you are blocking a lot (how many a "lot" is will have to be determined empirically) of /64s in a /56 then block the whole /56, the same for a /48. Nothing higher, as can be determined by examining the IPv6 allocation policies of the RIRs. | |
| Apr 12, 2011 at 8:20 | comment | added | Arjan | I suddenly think IPv6 blocking is harder than IPv4: how would one know how large the address space is that an ISP has given a subscriber? | |
| Feb 14, 2011 at 21:16 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | @Arjan that settng is the default in Windows 7, which is likely to be a really large fraction of early IPv6 usage. | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 19:01 | comment | added | Arjan | (To extend on my earlier comment a bit: I just learned that exposing MAC addresses in IPv6 addresses can be avoided by a setting on a computer (it's not something a router configures). See How to avoid exposing my MAC address when using IPv6? on Super User.) | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 0:26 | comment | added | The Unhandled Exception | +1 for the World IPv6 day suggestion!!! | |
| Feb 8, 2011 at 12:26 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | Have just noticed that Facebook's IPv6 address is 2620:0:1CFE:FACE:B00C::3 which is rather neat. [nslookup -type=AAAA www.v6.facebook.com for those on Windows, dig www.v6.facebook.com AAAA for UNIX-types]. Anyone 7EE7 enough to do the same in hex for StackOverflow? | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 18:48 | comment | added | Arjan | (Okay, thanks, @Richard. I copied your comment to the Firesheep question.) | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 18:46 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | @Arjan - yes, IPv6 spam / LQQ blocking might work better - though bear in mind that most implementations don't actually use the MAC address for blocking; you're probably better off blocking a /64 - but it will definitely need rewriting to deal with a different set of issues. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 18:44 | comment | added | Richard Gadsden | @Arjan No, IPv6 doesn't make HTTPS obsolete - it's quite hard to require a connection to us IPSec from the client level (it's a network level feature). TLS sits up at the application layer so it's easy for the application to require TLS: IPSec is way down in the land of datagrams. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 18:13 | comment | added | Arjan | Richard, if you happen to know a lot about IPv6, and the IPSEC that all implementations must support, then: do you know if that makes using HTTPS obsolete (well, for the encryption part)? I'm wondering if supporting IPv6 would also solve issues with cookie theft, like that of Firesheep. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 18:03 | comment | added | Arjan | Spam and low quality questions blocking could actually improve, as often IPv6 addresses give one both some subscriber-specific prefix (kind of like the IPv4 address, which could be shared with others) and the computer specific MAC address. Blocking both makes it harder to bypass the block. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 17:30 | history | edited | Richard Gadsden | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
World IPv6 day
|
| Feb 7, 2011 at 17:24 | history | answered | Richard Gadsden | CC BY-SA 2.5 |