• Archr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    gofuckyour.self

    Sounds pretty funny. Can’t wait to see what is hosted there.

    I would guess either 50-50 it is a meme site or pron. No in between.

  • gemakey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Sounds like a great way to curate a list of homelab targets. I’m good, thanks.

    • blargh513@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Was just thinking that it would be such a juicy target for so many things. I also shall pass on this one.

  • ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    TLD’s aren’t the limitation… Public IPs are… If it wasn’t for Cloudflared, I couldn’t run half the shit I run.

      • ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I saw the rfc for IPV8 recently… It makes so much more sense than ipv6…and is backward compatible with ipv4…

        Basically they’re proposing prefacing 4 more octets into an IP address, so 172.16.5.1 would become 0.0.0.0.172.16.5.1

        Any existing IPs would just assume the 0.0.0.0 in front of them…

        Again…solves the problem on much the same way.

        • mholiv@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Just fyi IPv8 was written by LLM with full on hallucinated citations and references. It isn’t being taken seriously by anyone.

          It didn’t even make sense. It relies on DNS for nat and the like. Deranged networking plans from the non-mind of an LLM.

          I recommend taking the time to learn IPv6 properly. It’s actually quite elegant and brings back the peer to peer, endpoint to endpoint connection ability of the old internet.

            • mholiv@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I wouldn’t even say it was a good idea. Like the end to end NAT free internet is the ideal. IPv6 was built for that.

              Even if IPv8 was not slop it would reenforce the idea of nat and hierarchy.

              IPv6 allows for a democratized internet where anyone can choose to self host. And anyone can connect to anyone who is self hosting.

              Because of this it’s a bit more complicated. But ideology it much better than IPv8. It brings us back what made the internet great in the 90s and 2000s, but at scale.

        • Ernest@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I saw the RFC for IPv8 recently

          nitpick, but I would say “an RFC”, as there’s been a number of these over the years


          you’ve gotten a couple responses so far, but I think the central issue is that “complexity” isn’t the problem with IPv6 (and one could certainly argue that IPv6 is actually simpler)–the problem is compatibility. This article lays out the issue very well, and also links to this article (which is a more specific look at the IPv8 proposal you refer to). Both point to the same conclusion, which is that fundamentally–on first principles–existing hardware does not know how to handle the upgrade, which will require some sort of dual-stacking, which is the issue IPv6 currently has. (Not its technical merit.)

          • ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            True, good point. AN RFC…

            To be fair, I never got IPV6… was too confusing. I’ve always been able to rattle off IPv4 addresses in my sleep. IPV6 just wasn’t as natural.

        • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That’s not how header backward compatibility works. IPv4 routers would discard the packet, not prepend zeroes.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Sometimes these new TLDs are just odd. And the odder they are, the more expensive they are.

  • palordrolap@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Given the context, the four “Follow Us” links going to proprietary services does seem somewhat antithetical to .self ideals.

    At the very least set up a Mastodon account somewhere in addition to those.

  • BromSwolligans@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    21 hours ago
    upstream connect error or disconnect/reset before headers. reset reason: remote connection failure, transport failure reason: delayed connect error: Connection refused