Closed mixmix closed 4 years ago
cc @cryptix @christianbundy @pietgeursen @staltz @Happy0 @soapdog @mmckegg @dominictarr
published as 3.3.3
:warning: I didn't test this on an ipv4 network, but given the change I made I don't think that's a problem. I think we should probably review the options non-private-ip
provides. I don't know enough about whether we should be leaning into ipv6 yet ...
here's what non-private-ip
provides :
{ [Function]
private:
{ [Function] v4: '192.168.1.162', v6: 'fe80::4e47:553c:c9f4:6acc' },
v4: undefined,
v6: '2407:7000:9c49:4e00:ecda:4ad0:b28a:25a2',
all:
{ public:
{ v4: undefined, v6: '2407:7000:9c49:4e00:ecda:4ad0:b28a:25a2' },
private: { v4: '192.168.1.162', v6: 'fe80::4e47:553c:c9f4:6acc' } } }
where
private()
// => '192.168.1.162'
oh actually this is likely a terrible solution I've just published, but perhaps the existing config is as well ... with ::
as a fallback.
I've not fully understood the VPS stuff in non-private-ip
...
I guess the desire is to try and find a "public" IP address for the host, which is useful if you're a pub. for me on a local network behind a DHCP... I guess I want a private IP address so at least people locally can call in to me?
@mixmix perhaps relevant to your issue is my fork of non-private-ip: https://github.com/staltz/non-private-ip/blob/5cded6587560b24dbe14792d381f03e258e14356/index.js
I had to do this because on mobile it's quite common that non-private-ip returns an IPv6 address, often not for the network interface you're interested in (wlan0), but for other carrier and mobile-related net interfaces (rmnet0, etc). What my fork does is that instead of taking the first IP address it sees, it gives each IP address a score and selects the one with the highest score, prioritizing wlan interfaces and IPv4.
Nice idea!
note I've merged a PR christian wrote which over-writes this. Not sure how that will play with your thing, but worth checking out. %TR33K6AtKDYY9XIwK3dmkV3B5PlSMuiirYiI/6N755g=.sha256
Perhaps your thing could be mergedinto non-private-ip ... or maybe published as a new module which has the same API?
Perhaps your thing could be mergedinto non-private-ip ... or maybe published as a new module which has the same API?
Yes I think I should merge it. I think I also tested it on desktop.
Heads up butts ... oh that's a new one I'm changing the default host thing to catch some weird ipv6 network behaviour.
Tested from windows <> linux machines with
ssb-lan
and immediately saw things working.original issue posted here : https://github.com/ssbc/secret-stack/issues/46