Hacker News Reader

Comment by pilif | Hacker News Reader

not really. By banning the whole /64 prefix, you get the same effect that you got from banning a single IPv4 address.

You have to be careful about that, not everyone hands out /64. They can be as small as /128 and I've seen some providers give out as large as /48.

/48 is the recommendation for home users now.

My ISP (Aussie Broadband) follows that recommendation and provides me with a /48 that I can break into multiple /56s or /64s.

I'd prefer a much smaller range but being able to request as many as I want via DHCP (or equivalent mechanism). That way it wouldn't be contiguous so I wouldn't feel as much of a need to use a VPN for privacy. As it is, what's the point of handing me an entire /48 if I just end up forcing most of my traffic through a single IPv4 address with a VPN for most of my web browsing anyway?

Although to be fair even with non-contiguous address space I might still want a VPN since ISPs in the US are allowed to sell your browsing history.

Also if I'm hosting a public facing service at home I'm going to proxy it via wireguard through a VPS I rent for obvious security reasons. I don't actually want public facing services directly exposed from my home network and I have to question the sanity of anyone who says they do.

And I've always disabled webrtc for obvious privacy (ie network fingerprinting) reasons. What's so great about getting rid of NAT again?

Unless the person uses t-mobile, which puts a lot of people on very small IP blocks, which is such a huge logistical nightmare for enforcing bans. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32038215

Reply on news.ycombinator.com