CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@jima @tschaefer @ghostinthenet In some ways, I think it's perfect that LinkedIn content stays wholly contained within that platform lol

@jima @tschaefer @ghostinthenet For different reasons, I no longer use archive\.is links or visit them

@jima @tschaefer @ghostinthenet The thing is, I'd prefer to never have to see that dismal document ever again. Its very existence exudes categorical error.

@jima @tschaefer @ghostinthenet Do IETF proposals get their TTL extended when there's a revision?

I would support additional meowing in the only proposal that's worth talking about, just to make sure it sticks around.

@tschaefer At the current rate, the proposal -- which I will not even dignify with a name -- will become a litmus test, to detect people who genuinely do not understand one iota of network complexity, or history for that matter.

Such people must never be put in charge of anything more complicated than plugging in an Ethernet cord.

@nuintari Honestly, it's somewhat surprising they didn't reintroduce classful networking. Considering the trainwreck before us, they might as well have defined Class D, Class E, and Class F networks to be /96, /84, and /72, for no obvious reason whatsoever and in stark contravention to anything learned in the last 30 years.

Probably the worst part is that people who don't know better will think that 8 > 6 and therefore ask their network admins to implement this. God help these admins.

@nuintari I couldn't make it through more than two minutes of reading the sheer contradictions.

I wish to give it no further consideration, except as an excellent example of how an onslaught of truly insane, possibly LLM generated slop is sufficient to tire out the BS-meters from anyone that still has a working one.

I wonder if anyone has ever done fondue cheese with popcorn.

@lowqualityfacts After 15 years, I can't believe that one mayonnaise company still won't forget about the incident. I personally thought the result was a true work of art, but I guess haters gonna hate.

@wtfismyip What if it's just an elaborate nerd-snipe and there is no objective??

@wtfismyip Is this another reference I don't quite understand, about the position within pi?

@wtfismyip That's a bit too high effort for a drunk midnight call haha

That said, I may not have understood the references. 27 32 42 12 17 67?

@lw I think, but I'm not certain, this might be due to how WG attaches itself to the iptables/nftables chain, stealing packets before they get to the routing decision.

Perhaps "iptables -vL" will show something along those lines? It's been a while since I've dealt with iptables, and I now mostly prefer to do WG in a separate namespace so that my application containers don't have to be dual-stack.

@lw Firstly, I want to apologize for missing the part in your original post where you already said there was no default route. I now see how strange the situation is.

It's perplexing as to what would be holding up the v4 connection. Is tcpdump or Wireshark available to examine the traffic? The primary DNS server is on v6?

@lw What does "ip -4 route" look like? There might be a default route that it's trying to connect through, one which dead-ends but it won't know that until it tries. For WG, if you remove the default route and replace it with a static route for precisely the WG endpoint, I think that should result in all Legacy IP traffic being unroutable except for WG.