Hacker News Reader

Yes. And it's not just multiple IPv6. I don't know iOS, but Windows, OS X and Debian all use only "privacy-friendly" (RFC 4941) IPv6 with remote devices. And they change frequently. That gets to be a pain when you're pushing static routes. NAT was so easy.

View on HN

I'm not sure I understand what your use case is for pushing static routes & would be interested to understand what you mean.

I've been trying a few different approaches to routing. Putting link-local addresses in routing tables has worked well in some deployments.

Debian & OS X use MAC based addresses in addition to their privacy addresses. https://www.danieldent.com/blog/remote-ipv6-device-fingerpri...

I'm pushing static routes over OpenVPN tap to get IPv6 assigned to remote LANs. In my (very limited) experience, the MAC-based IPv6 don't reach the Internet (http://test-ipv6.com for example). However, they do get revealed via WebRTC in Firefox (default install). IE and Safari block WebRTC by default.

My testing has shown they are accessible over the internet :(.

They are not marked as 'preferred' and won't be used by default. But they are still available for use if someone goes out of their way to do so.

Thanks. I was going from http://test-ipv6.com/. Unless the "privacy" address is routed, it reports no IPv6 connectivity. I'm guessing that ping6 should find them, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com