El_RIDO

> What is hard, is dual stack networking. Dual stack networking absolutely sucks, [...]

Clearly you have gotten some unfortunate hands on experience with those edge cases. In my uses the dual-stacking of IPv4 & IPv6 has been a big benefit in that I have to worry a lot less about locking myself out of systems, as I can always reconnect and correct configuration mistakes on the second stack.

Comparing the IPv4+IPv6 dual-stack story to the one from the 90s of IPv4 with IPX/SPX (Novell Netware) and/or NetBIOS (Microsoft Windows), the current state is a lot more smooth and robust.

I've so far only run into 3 issues over the years (2013 till now). A local train operator running IPv6 on routers that didn't properly support non-default MTU sizes (fragmented packages getting dropped) and Microsoft where Github is still IPv4-only and Teams recently developed an IPv6-only failure on a single API endpoint.

Should we ever turn off IPv4 during my working life-time, I hope we have at that point introduced a successor to IPv6, so I can keep using a dual- or triple-stack solution, using different network protocols for robustness.

Sigh I work at a company that not long ago added support for applications written to use SUPRA to their portfolio. It's not dead yet, there are companies out there still running it in production and willing to spend money to replace it, while keeping their business logic.

It's the same censorship-model as with mail servers: You can use a big shared hoster and the rules of that hosts country and their policies apply. You can run your own and you will have to deal with any local legal requirements and get to set (but also have to enforce) your own policies. In reality, (self-)censorship is the smallest of your problems, spam and abuse of your service is what you'll be mostly dealing with.

For a small instance with only a handful of friend and family accounts that effort (spam, abuse, legal stuff) will take less than 1h per month. On a large instance that can become a full persons job.

Source: I'm running my own fediverse instance since 2011 (using Friendica, predates Mastodon) - as well as my own mail server.

This was a common criticism in my circles (friends, work colleagues, acquaintances in tech meetups) in the mid-to-late 00s with Facebook: They called all contacts "friends" and in German that really sounded off to many of us. You wouldn't be "friends" with your relatives or boss or colleague at work, for example, those are entirely different kind of relationships. We assumed that this was a badly translated Americanism.

Google Plus and it's "circles" of contacts was a better design in that regard.

For clients, IMHO, SLAAC is fine and means I don't have to maintain and run a DHCP service anymore. One less thing that can fail, while SLAAC only fails me if the routers IPv6 link inside the given network goes down.

Servers on the other hand, I will provision with a static IP subnet on deploy, as part of the PXE install or configuration management process, depending on the environment. They will have an ephemeral address during the install, but then query for and persist their allotted address before rebooting into the installed environment as part of their post-install.

I guess we agree that we need a single source of truth, what physical device has what IP (range) in their possession at any time. DNS is a classic way to do that, but there are other solutions, from ITIL-style CMDBs to simple config management git repos. And of course the latter doesn't mean that we don't also update DNS based on IP-assignement, DHCP is not the only tool that can be made to interface with a DNS service.

In this model, you wouldn't await the user clicking OK, but exiting the modal. The promise only resolves "user took a decision", not the actual choice they took.

The result then contains if the user clicked OK, Cancel, [X] to close the modal or any other state transition that you may have added to that dialog. The recipient (not necessarily the caller that initiated the dialog, in case you chain the responses) can then act accordingly and presumably triggers a different action on OK then the other state transitions.