Nysepho 

214 Followers
183 Following
955 Posts

fox → ??? → striped yeen

28 | he/him |  #gay 🏳️‍🌈 | computers/cars/things

⚠️ Also active at https://bsky.app/profile/nysepho.bsky.social
🔞 May post or boost NSFW content, with CWs.

​ $ curl -L https://yeen.sh

websitehttps://nysepho.pw
pronounshe/him
pgp0x9AF49A67
locationN. Ireland
wow it's been a while since i last posted here

The #FDroid website has a new banner on top to remind visitors that #Google did not change course and #Android will be locked-down in under 200 days.

If you care about the freedom to control your devices and care about the privacy of you data, please contact your representative and make your voice heard.

https://keepandroidopen.org/ (thanks @marcprux) has the resources to guide you.

We know users will rarely visit the site so the Client(s) will get a banner soon too.

Thank you for your support!

Keep Android Open

Advocating for Android as a free, open platform for everyone to build apps on.

that's just normal cat behavior wdym

oh you like LINUX do you??

you like to TAIL things huh? CAT a file?

fucking furry.

Whoever at MS decided that 32-bit hex errors are informative and text is not to be shown to allow anyone troubleshooting their trash heap to understand what the error is needs an atomic wedgie

I have a WireGuard tunnel between my router and a server on the Internet. Either can establish a connection to the other using their GUAs, and the 172.16.0.0/24 range is used inside the tunnel. The server is also aware of RFC1918 subnets behind the router as they're listed in its AllowedIps conf, and clients can connect to the server at 172.16.0.2.

I'd like to start using IPv6 inside the tunnel as well, but I'm not sure exactly how. I can assign both the router and server a ULA to use in the tunnel which allows them to communicate over IPv6, but clients aren't able to reach the server's ULA because the GUA prefix they connect from isn't in AllowedIps on the server. If I add the clients' GUA prefix to the server's AllowedIps conf they can reach the server's ULA, but not its GUA.

I guess I'd have to advertise the ULA prefix at home, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach. What's everyone else doing?

Clients no longer being able to access the server at its GUA doesn't seem useful, e.g. if I have a public-facing service on the server with DNS pointing at the server's GUA.

I have a WireGuard tunnel between my router and a server on the Internet. Either can establish a connection to the other using their GUAs, and the 172.16.0.0/24 range is used inside the tunnel. The server is also aware of RFC1918 subnets behind the router as they're listed in its AllowedIps conf, and clients can connect to the server at 172.16.0.2.

I'd like to start using IPv6 inside the tunnel as well, but I'm not sure exactly how. I can assign both the router and server a ULA to use in the tunnel which allows them to communicate over IPv6, but clients aren't able to reach the server's ULA because the GUA prefix they connect from isn't in AllowedIps on the server. If I add the clients' GUA prefix to the server's AllowedIps conf they can reach the server's ULA, but not its GUA.

I guess I'd have to advertise the ULA prefix at home, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach. What's everyone else doing?

remember, drm hurts consumers more than pirates.

(not my review.)
Well, it's no surprise but I can finally route IPv6 at wire speed! It's pretty unfortunate that the hAP ac³ can't deliver even half of the IPv6 throughput as it can IPv4+NAT (probably due to the lack of IPv6 fasttrack support), otherwise I wouldn't have needed to upgrade as urgently. Looking forward to some better WireGuard throughput too.