Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by dcow on Monday February 12, 2018 @02:27PM
(#16361252)
It's all in the RFCs. Start here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4007
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Monday February 12, 2018 @03:18PM
(#16361676)
ULA isn't even mentioned in that RFC? (Presumably because ULA was standardized half a year later?)
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by dcow on Monday February 12, 2018 @10:40PM
(#16364555)
Yes ULA is a different RFC.
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @04:58AM
(#16365985)
OK, so? Where exactly do you think are those things specified? Or do you expect me to re-read all IPv6 RFCs only to then repeat those questions because I still don't know where they are specified?
Well, not disagreeing that you can have those, but why are you mentioning that specifically for "global addresses", but not for ULA?
> while ULAs have arbitrary prefixes (not suitable for global routing)
How are ULA prefixes different from PI allocations as far as suitability for global routing is concerned?
> and are not supposed to be forwarded to interfaces outside their subnet.
Would you mind pointing to the normative source for this forwarding policy?
> Local DNS is allowed to respond with ULAs, just not servers participating in the global authoritative DNS.
Would you mind pointing to the normative source for this?
> IPv6 kills NAT, so "scoped" addresses step in to fill the void and are overall a much better solution.
But you said that ULA are global scope (which they are, I agree), so what does this have to do with scoped addresses?
Also, which void exactly does killing NAT leave that needs filling (and that then supposedly is filled by ULA)?