@jima Interesting you mention that. I was poking at my router the other day and realized they were assigning 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 via DHCP but no resolvers coming in via #ipv6
I am back to using full recursor mode right now because I want my DNS to Just Work™, but it means I'm leaking those queries in the clear.
@tschaefer still waiting for CloudFront to support #ipv6 origins ……………
I just realized how I'm using my /64 & /48 from @henet - I wrote a spreadsheet with all the hosts and addresses. The /64 is not used. Anywhere. Only the /48
First, I thought: OMG, wrong.
I now see each vlan has its own /64
OK, that sounds reasonable now.
It would be nice if infosec and IT tools provided better IPv6 support.
Weren't we supposed to run out of IPv4 addressees 10 years ago? What happened to the IPv6 revolution?
It seems that arcep doesn't like the Deutsche Telekom. (3320)
Or Deutsche Telekom doesn't like arcep.
Superbe article de @seb_nxi sur l'activation #IPv6 chez Free : https://next.ink/176398/free-active-enfin-ipv6-par-defaut-pour-ses-clients-mobiles/
Question for the #Dell servers specialists and/or older integrators/maintainers out there:
Does someone know if the #PowerEdge T310's IPMI/BMC supports #IPv6 ?
My particular unit is running firmware v1.6.0 + BMC system v1.70.15 (latest available on Dell drivers website) and I can't set anything regarding this protocol via BIOS setup nor ipmitool - but it explicitly says "IPv4" on the setup page, which means it is aware of the current protocol existence.
And I know it's old, don't @ me on that.
Router und Switch zuhause aktualisiert und direkt #IPv6 geschrottet. Vielleicht sollte ich es endlich mal richtig machen. 
#einmalmitprofis
Tier 1 carrier, March 2025: “Were you needing any IP version 6? We’ve got plenty of version 4, and most people don’t want any version 6, but of course we’ve got plenty of those too.”
Me: 
Ich würde von einer nachhaltigen Bank erwarten, dass Website und Online-Banking per #ipv6 erreichbar sind. Die GLS-Bank sagt, sie arbeitet immernoch daran...
annoying freebsd ipv6 thing:
# ifconfig lo1 create inet6 auto_linklocal -ifdisabled 2001:db8:100::1/128 up
# ping 2001:db8:200::2
(ping uses 2001:db8:100::1 as source address)
# ifconfig lo2 create inet6 auto_linklocal -ifdisabled no_prefer_iface 2001:db8:200::1/128 up
# ping 2001:db8:200::2
(ping now uses 2001:db8:200:1 as source address)
my expectation was that no_prefer_iface would prevent it from choosing addresses on lo2 as source address automatically, but apparently this does not prevent choosing the longest match for the destination :-(
there's 'prefer_source', which seems to be an address-specific attribute, but i don't think i want that since i have both GUA and ULA addresses configured.
there's also 'anycast', but apparently if you configure an address as anycast, you can't bind to it, which seems a bit useless.
TIL about lsd(1)
What an awsome addition to my lolcat arsenal!
The acronym is not correctly used by me in this case, because I **know** I used LSD in the 1990's (the command in a UNIX ENV:) and LSD is just as pretty as it was psychedelic in the last century!
`man lsd `
An ls command with a lot of pretty colors and some other stuff.
@jean_dupont @jima @colin @rail_ I'm not aware of any modern OS or networking stack that disables RFC4941 privacy extension for outbound connection by default. Some stacks will use EUI-64 MAC-derived addresses for inbound, but there's no reason for outbound connections to use that. And they don't, for a long while now.
And even if they did, randomized per-network MACs are prevalent now. So a derived #IPv6 address against that MAC still doesn't pose a privacy issue.
)
