menotyou

..or they would just not submit it at all.

My IPS changes my prefix once in while. I consider this a privacy feature, not a bug.

Now I find myself in a situation that my devices are not reachable anymore as when the IPv6 address changes and both DNS entries and firewall need to be updated each time when the prefix changed (In between connections break, but this might be a lesser problem)

As far as I understand the only solution which does not include some complex scripting of ip change detection and automatically updating the firewall rules is to use NAT66 and ULA. But even then I have a protocol whose most advertised feature is not to rely on NAT and puts mit fast in a situation in need to use NAT. And the privacy extension of every device or the devices using SLAC and not DHCPv6 are problematic.

IPv6 is just not able to steup efficiently for where IP addresses are changing. Not with moving mobile devices, not in wifi environments with multiple access points, not with changing prefixes, not in failover scenarios.

Bottom Line: I disabled IPv6 again here without any intentions to look for complex workarounds. All outbound traffic is now IPv4 again. IPv6 is providing no benefit but causes additional problems over IPv4 due to issues with the design. I am waiting for IPv7 (or whatever will be the next successor of IPv4) will arrive.

Let's say when your ipv6 prefix changes it is almost the same situation. Only that ipv4 bundles all traffic of all devices on one ip which obfuscates a bit.

But having the ipv6 prefix change you get a pile of problems (DNS, firewall), you don't have with ipv4.

Never checked. But it does change once in a while. The router has a dyndns function which updates a DNS entry, but only for the router itself. But this is sufficient for the NAT port forwarding.

My ISP changes the prefix on a regular base (and on request)

"IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP), the successor to IPv4."

This is a misconception. It is not the successor to IPv4, it is an alternative. Maybe the alternative is so good it will eventually make the older extinct, but it does not look like that

Router has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT port forwarding to the reverse proxy.

So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions?

I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.

Currently my IPS provides IPv6, but I set up my firewall in the access router of my home LAN to block all IPv6 in both directions.

- I don't want to have a permanent global unchanged ipv6 as in id of my traffic.

- IPv6 privacy extensions would change that but then I can not reach my two devices I do want to reach from outside anymore as my access router only supports DynDNS for its own address and no NAT in IPv6

Arguably lots of UIs getting worse with every iteration of redesign.

- Windows GUI went downhill from Windows 7 (or even XP) with every release.

- Outlook went from good over fair to annoying so that I finally replaced it as my personal client.

These are not the only examples I could name but they are the most prominent. I think the main problem is that both technical staff and UX designers both trying to make something "new" or "fancy" which is in most cases the opposite of something usable. E.g. Aero was fancy but it took away that my active window had one signal color header bar and all others were tamed. Now all windows are colorful and yelling at me at the same time. Orientation is gone.

And after that UIs got even more "fancy".

Step 13 ("Nobody's happy but nobody hates it") is the plateau when everybody is to tired to keep on fighting - a compromise, not the state of the GUI reached anything acceptable. It is not fancy enough anymore for developers and UX designers to be proud of but at the same time and is still annoyingly bad for the users.

> Why would smart people care about denim vs. trousers?

Mostly it's about the sponsors. It's much more difficult to get sponsors for an event if the participants are dressed like they slept in their clothes. That's why organizers try to impose minimal standards on dresscodes.

Jeans and sneakers are maybe debatable, but players showed up with cargo pants, shorts or tank tops on other events.

In the FIDE regulation for that event jeans were explicitly mentioned as not allowed. FIDE would have made a fool out of themselves when allowing Magnus to wear the jeans.

Before OOP became popular the usage of global variables was discouraged in procedural languages because it was the cause of many bugs and errors.

In OOP global state variables were renamed to instance variables and are now widely used. The problem why it was discouraged beforehand did not went away by renaming but is now spread all over the place.

"...connect to the Windows experience they know and love.."

I am not in that target group.

Here in Germany you can see how this argument evolves. For the Green party everything which disagrees with their position is declared nowadays rated as "hate speech" because the only conceivable reason for disagreeing with the green is people hate them.

Yet another article about problems you'd never have if you wouldn't use object oriented paradigm.

Quick test: Try to imagine the following and then answer the questions beneath.

Imagine a table with a ball on it. A person is approaching the table, pushes the ball gently, and the balls starts to roll.

Questions:

(1) What color has the ball?

(2) Is the person male or female?

(3) What material is the table made of?

(4) When you answered questions (1)-(3), did you know the answer beforehand, or did you think about when you were reading the questions?

Depending on your answer to question (4) you can assume if you have it or not.