🏴☠️
I assumed this was a 1 April publication but nope, it appears to be real. My favorite part is how it basically pretends IPv6 doesn't exist except for a couple mentions of basically "no one likes v6."
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
7
@dch @ClickyMcTicker @cR0w I really hope it's real because this dual stack world is terrible squared
@dch @ClickyMcTicker @cR0w why would it be triple stack? you put IPv6 in the bin where it belongs and you have a hybrid dual-stack where new infra can take advantage of the new address space and old infra works transparently
@feld @dch @ClickyMcTicker @cR0w
I don't know how anyone can take this seriously when this is in the draft: Every manageable element in an IPv8 network is authorised via OAuth2 JWT tokens served from a local cache.
I don't know how anyone can take this seriously when this is in the draft: Every manageable element in an IPv8 network is authorised via OAuth2 JWT tokens served from a local cache.
@dch @feld @ClickyMcTicker @cR0w The idea behind it after reading through some of the draft is that it prevents unauthorized changes to the network.
When I join your network while not being authorized to do so, I should not be able to access anything on the network. Or at least that's how I understood it, since the draft is ambiguous about it and doesn't really explain it. So I guess things like ARP spoofing on a local network should then be impossible, because the responses aren't authorized by a valid JWT token.
When I join your network while not being authorized to do so, I should not be able to access anything on the network. Or at least that's how I understood it, since the draft is ambiguous about it and doesn't really explain it. So I guess things like ARP spoofing on a local network should then be impossible, because the responses aren't authorized by a valid JWT token.
@phnt @dch @ClickyMcTicker @cR0w
> So I guess things like ARP spoofing on a local network should then be impossible, because the responses aren't authorized by a valid JWT token
except if the client doesn't implement IPv8 and is operating in the backwards compat IPv4 mode, then I assume it has to accept the ARP spoofing?
> So I guess things like ARP spoofing on a local network should then be impossible, because the responses aren't authorized by a valid JWT token
except if the client doesn't implement IPv8 and is operating in the backwards compat IPv4 mode, then I assume it has to accept the ARP spoofing?
@dch @ClickyMcTicker @cR0w but they're not IPv6-only, so turning it off isn't a big deal
we have *clients* that are IPv6-only in some places and use NAT64 to reach IPv4, but server infrastructure is still dual stack
we have *clients* that are IPv6-only in some places and use NAT64 to reach IPv4, but server infrastructure is still dual stack