I kinda did that for a boss. They had to call shots and destroy body parts doing at least 25 damage a turn or it healed. Turns out level 13 5e PCs have no problem with that.
Honestly, if you just throw the whole hot end assembly (all electric components detached) in the oven at a low temp you'll probably be able to rip the whole blob off in one chunk and keep using it. Unless any cabling got damaged (entirely possible) I doubt anything is actually broken.
Eh, not necessarily. Like I said before, the cables are really the only things you need to worry about in that area. When you consider how each of the components works, it makes it seem less damaging.
The heat cartridge is just two cables touching together inside a porcelain and metal housing that gets hot.
The thermistor is just two cables slightly air gapped inside another porcelain and metal housing to provide varying resistance depending on temperature.
Neither of these components will care if a huge blob of plastic temporarily adheres itself to the housing, so long as the cables remain intact.
My worry is stripped threads and, in even if not, I think it's probably about time to let the poor thing retire (until I repurpose it into a filament extruder). It's served me far better than I expected.
I'm not sure what you mean by stripped threads. Metal is stronger than plastic, there's nothing the PLA blob can do to cause physical damage to your hot end besides damaging cables. And I don't know what threads would be exposed to even be damaged.
I mean if you're wanting to buy a new hotend by all means get one, but don't do so thinking you have to because of this. I almost wanna guarantee everything still works as long as your cables are intact.
True but, with pressure, water can cut metal. I'll be heat softening it with my PCB toaster oven to see if I can recover it. If it's just a leak, and no electrical damage, as you mention, it's probably ok.
Probably, I'll still get a new hotend, even if there's no breakage because I think that the PTFE feed tube is a bit of a weak link.
IPv6 = second system effect. It's way too complicated for what was needed and this complexity hinders its adoption. We don't need 100 ip addresses for every atom on the earth's surface and we never will.
They should have just added an octet to IPv4 and be done with it.
Every time there's a "just add an extra octet" argument, I feel some people are completely clueless about how hardware works.
Most hardware comes with 32-bit or 64-bit registers. (Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64.) By adding only an extra octet, thus having 40 bits for addressing, you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register. Or wasting 24 bits of a 32-bit register pair. Either way, this is inefficient.
And there's also the fact that the modern internet is actually reaching the upper limits of a hypothetical 64-bit IPv5: https://lemmy.world/comment/10727792. Do we want to spend yet another two decades just to transition to a newer protocol?
You're not "wasting" them if you just don't need the extra bits, Are you wasting a 32-bit integer if your program only ever counts up to 1000000?
Even so when you do start to need them, you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets. Like you can just define it as a.b.c.d.e = 0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.0.a.b.c.d.e
Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64
If you're worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go.
Anyway, your explanation is a perfect example of "second system effect" at work. You get all caught up in the mistakes of the first system, in casu the lack of addressing bits, and then you go all out to correct those mistakes for your second system, giving it all the bits humanity could ever need before the heat death of the universe, while ignoring the real world implications of your choices. And now you are surprised that nobody wants to use your 128-bit abomination.
You're not "wasting" them if you just don't need the extra bits
We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that (i.e. it goes from top to bottom using up all bits). If you don't use the bits you are actually wasting them.
you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets
So why didn't we make other bits available for IPv4 gradually? Yeah, same issue as that: Forwards compatibility. If you meant that this "IPv5" standard should specify compulsory 64-bit support from the very beginning, then why are you arbitrarily restricting the use of some bits in the first place?
If you're worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go
We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that. If you don’t use the bits you are actually wasting them.
Bullshit.
I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I "wasting" it?
All the 128 bits are used in IPv6. ;)
Yes they are all "used" but you don't need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world. In your own terminology: you are using 4 registers for a 2 register problem. That is much more wasteful in terms of hardware than using 40 bits to represent an ip address and wasting 24 bits.
I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I "wasting" it?
You are using the addressing bits in the form of virtual memory. Right now. Unless you run a unikernel system, then in that case you could be right, but I doubt it.
Anyway, this is apples and oranges. IP addresses are hierarchical by design (so you have subnets of subnets of subnets of ...), memory addresses are flat for the most part, minus some x86 shenanigans.
Yes they are all "used" but you don't need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world.
But we do need them! The last 64 bits of your IPv6 addresses are randomized for privacy purposes, it's either that or your MAC address is used for them. We may not be using those addresses simultaneously but they certainly are used.
Despite that, there still are plenty of empty spaces in IPv6, that's true. But they will still be used in the future should the opportunity arise. Any "wastage" is artificial, not a built-in deficiency of the protocol. Whereas if we restricted the space to 40 bits, there will be 24 bits wasted forever no matter how.
That why we should adopt my ipv12. Its three levels of addresses rach 512 bit longs. One for host one for network and one what ever the heel else need. Planet that's it we asogn each planet a 512 bit address
I felt dirty! and broke so much shit when i had to implement NAT on networks in the mid 90's. Nowdays with ipv6 and getting rid of NAT is much more liberating. The difference is staggering!
you do not need NAT any longer, firewall is the security, just like on ipv4, just less obscurity.
you do not need dns views, to workaround NAT any more
you do not need hairpin NAT to workaround NAT any more
you do not need to renumber to resize a network. they are always /64, and the answer to how many hosts can it fit is: ALL of them!
many ALG's will be unnecessary since there is not NAT.
vpn's are easier, since it can be the same address both inside and outside the vpn, the firewall (or host even) enforces the encryption.
vpn's are MUCH easier since you will have less rfc1918 collisions due to some other network using the rfc1918 of the vpn's network
vpn's are MUCH MUCH easier since you will have less rfc1918 collisions due to you using the rfc1918 of the vpn partner network, to 1:1 nat a previous vpn network you collided with some months ago... ARGH!!!
vpn are generally less required, heck i swear 95% of the time the VPN are just to workaround the NAT problem and the data is pointlessly double or triple encrypted.
you can make more granular firewall rules (eg the spesific host, or network of the source address, instead of the whole enterprise's public ip) this is real tangible improved security, where any random machine in a network you do not control. do not automatically have openings into your own network.
firewall objects can if it is suited easily use and depend on FQDN DNS objects when allowing traffic. reducing the need of coordinating firewall object ip address changes between 15 companies.
firewall rules are easier, more readable, and much more predictable how they will work. All the hairpin nat, public to private nat, private to public nat for a thing that need a different public ip, 1:1 nat for a separate zone, NAT to a vpn or 50 (where 10 of them are 1:1 nat due to collisions, making you require 4 dns views of the same ip space!! ) very quickly gets messy and unreadable. this is probably the largest security benefit. just to reduce the complexity.
much easier to get people to use dns, since nobody wants to remember ipv6 addresses :D
nibbles in the ipv6 address can have meanings you assign to them, making the networks and structure both easy to remember and logically structured.
aggregating routes becomes very easy if you design your network that way.
firewall policies can become easier if you design your network that way.
your routing tables is leaner and easier, and of a better consistency. We have 1 large public ipv6 prefix, but 25ish ipv4 prefixes of all kinds of various sizes.
no need to spend $$ to buy even more ipv4 prefixes.
no need to have spent hundreds of $$ on a new ipv4 prefix only to be unable to use them for over a year because you need to sanitize the addresses from all the reputation filters. and constantly hound geo ip database providers to update the new country of the prefix. (i am bitter,, can you tell..)
did i mention no need to renumber since you need to grow the /24 to /23 due to to many hosts in a network ?
did i mention no need to renumber 2 /24's to /25's to make space for that larger /23.
you do not even need any ipv4 addresses any more, use a public NAT64 service, for outgoing. and for incoming just use one of the many free public ipv4 to ipv6 proxies for your services online. for a homelab i really like http://v4-frontend.netiter.com/ (go support them) But most large business l networks use cloudflare, or akamai
since you do not need your ipv4 address space any more, you can ~~sell them for a profit $$$ ~~ return them to the RIR and give some address space to one of the thousands of companies struggling because they do not have any IPv4 : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-waiting-list/
much lower latency on ipv6, since you do not go across a cloud based ipv4 to ipv6 proxy in order to reach the service ;)
Now the greatest and best effect of ipv6 is none of the above. It is that with ipv6 we have a slim hope of reclaiming some of what made the Internet GREAT in the first place. When we all stood on equal footing. Anyone could host their own service. Now we are all vassals of the large companies that have made the common person into a CGNAT4444 using consumer mindlessly lapping up what the large company providers sees fit to provide us. with no way to even try to be a real and true part of the Internet. Fight the companies that want to make you a eyeball in their statistic, Set up your own IPv6 service on the Internet today !
i got like a third through it before scrolling to the bottom to see how long it was. omg! should be the canonical example of the opposite of a shitpost ha
But DNS rarely break. The meme about it beeing DNS's fault is more often then not just a symptom of the complexity of IPv4 NAT problem.
If i should guesstimate i think atleast 95% of the dns issues i have ever seen, are just confusion of what dns views they are in. confusion of inside and outside nat records. And forgetting to configure the inside when doing the outside or vice verca. DNS is very robust and stable when you can get rid of that complexity.
That beeing said, there are people that insist on obscurity beeing security (sigh) and want to keep doing dns views when using IPv6. But even then things are much easier when the result would be the same in either view.
I broke DNS plenty of times in my homelab independent from NAT. In the last few months:
didn't turn off DNS server in a wifi router set up as bridged access point
dnsmasq failing to start because I removed an interface
dnsmasq failing to start because the kernel/udev didn't rename an interface on time
dnsmasq failing to start because hostapd error didn't set proper interface settings
forgot to remove static DNS entries in /etc/hosts used for testing
forgot to remove DNS entries from /etc/resolve.conf after visiting a friend and working on his setup
Yes, most of them is my dumb ass making mistakes, but in the end it's something that constantly breaks and it helps knowing the IP addresses of my servers and routers.
Aditionally, obscurity is a security helper. The problem is relying only on obscurity. But if I have proper firewall rules in place and strong usernames and passwords I still prefer if you don't even know the IP addresses of my servers on top of that (in case I break some of the other security layers).
There's one practical thing. Routers have had years to optimize IPv4 routing, which has to be redone for IPv6. Same with networking stacks in general.
In theory, IPv6 should be faster by not having to do bullshit like CGNAT. There's every reason to think it'll match that advantage if we just make it happen.
In the USA, around 50% of Google traffic and 60% of Facebook traffic goes over IPv6. The largest mobile carriers in the US are nearly entirely IPv6-only too (customers don't get an IPv4 address, just an IPv6 one), using 464XLAT to connect to legacy IPv4-only servers. I'm sure we'd know if routing with IPv6 was slower. Google's data actually shows 10ms lower latency over IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
That is not how it works. You can have a home network on ipv6. And it can reach all of ipv4 via nat ( just like ipv4 do today). A net with only ipv4 can not reach any ipv6 without a proxy that terminst the v4 connection and make a new v6 connection. since ipv6 is backwards compatible. But ipv4 is naturally not forwards compatible.
Also it is the default deny of the stateful firewall that always coexist with NAT, since NAT depends on that state, that is the security in a NAT router.
That default deny is not in any way dependant on the NAT part.
If there is a ipv6 service online. That you want to reach from a v4 only client. You can set up a fixed 1:1 nat on your firewall where you define a fake internal ipv4 address -> destination NAT onto the public ipv6 address of the service. And SRC NAT64 embed your clients internal v4 into the source ipv6 for the return traffic.
And provide a internal dns view A record pointing to the fake internal ip record. It would work, but does not scale very well. Since you would have to set this up for every ipv6 ip.
A better solution would be to use a dualstack SOCKS5 proxy with dns forwarding where the client would use the IPv6 of the proxy for the connection. But that does not use NAT tho.
Yeah, here in Russia the ISPs and IT infrastructure guys seem to be treating IPv6 like it has cooties. I can't find an article (and it'd be in russian anyway) but as far back as 2022, if you get IPv6 you can expect a variety of issues with it, ranging from "you need to reboot your router every once in a while" to "you technically have v6 but good luck actually browsing v6 internet".
And of course, why would they give you a stable IP when they can charge for it :T. At least it's only a third the price of a stable IPv4.
My current ISP technically provides v6 according to their site - but my connection doesn't have it, and since there's nothing about it in the years-old contract, I'd need to redo that if I want to complain.
There are usually plenty of choices for ISPs here, actually. But switching between them isn't likely to give me IPv6 since either they share a magistral or the hardware is just plain old. That, and IPv6 is just not a thing anyone markets.
...and with the current fuckery going on, I doubt many of them have budget for big upgrades. Or maybe even access to hardware to buy.
IPv6 is already backwards compatible though. There's a /96 of the IPv6 space (i.e. 32 bit addresses) specifically for tunneling IPv4 traffic, and existing applications and IPv4 servers Just Work™ on IPv6 only networks, assuming the host operating system and routing infrastructure know about the 6to4 protocol and are willing to play ball.
Oh nice. Does your system FINALLY provide enough addreses for every Planck volume in the observable universe? It’s been frickin amateur hour, this internet thing.
Because 48 bits over 32 bits does not really solve the problems with ip4. 128 bits basically gives one ip4 address space to each square meter of earth. Ip6 also drops all the unused and silly parts of ip4 too.
lemmy.sdf.org
Active