Ansel Sermersheim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. It looks like 2001:470:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 was recently blocked by KrakatoaKatie. This blocks the entire Hurricane Electric IPv6 Tunnel broker service, which many people make use of since their ISP does not offer native IPv6. My tunnel blocks are 2001:470:8407::/48 and 2001:470:1f05:9d0::/64. Playing whack-a-mole unblocking individual users seems impossible though. Perhaps Hurricane Electric will provide their colocation prefix? Ansel Sermersheim (talk) 3:07 am, Today (UTC+2)
Accept reason:
We've discussed it on the functionaries list, and we came to consensus to unblock. There's a big potential for abuse that we're not sure HE can stop if it gets bad, but there's no widespread disruption ongoing so we'll play whack-a-mole as needed. Sorry for the inconvenience. Katietalk 04:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- For our purposes here, a tunnel broker does the same thing as a colocation webhost. It anonymizes the original IP. I asked other CUs on IRC about it before I blocked and there was no disagreement. I'm going to make a query on the CU mailing list, but I'll be busy for the next couple of days and it may take a bit to sort it out. Katietalk 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: @KrakatoaKatie: I'm not sure how to respond to this conversation but with a great deal of frustration. My ISP does not provide IPv6 service. (Old equipment in my physical location does not support it.) This policy effectively makes Wikipedia unreachable by IPv6 for many users. I suppose I could turn off IPv6 service every time I want to edit, or selectively blackhole IPv6 DNS entries for Wikipedia, but I am sure I am not the only person this affects and some will not know how. This is not the same thing as blocking a VPN provider. Also, the Hurricane Electric service does not hide or anonymize my IP. Rather, it *assigns* me an IP space, as listed above. It certainly makes sense to block at the /48 or /64 level, because that will affect one HE tunnel. But shutting down the entire service seems incredibly extreme. I have spent many years trying to help IPv6 adoption, encouraging vendors, content providers, and transit networks to support it properly and fix problems. Finding an organization like Wikipedia which is deliberately trying to hinder the QoE for IPv6 adopters is frankly astonishing. And no, "get a better provider which supports IPv6 natively" is not an answer. The only such provider in my area is Comcast and they have their own interesting baggage. Ansel Sermersheim (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, we're discussing it. I understand your frustration, but we need to come to a consensus about it so it's not just me dropping a hammer. And it's not about IPv6 adoption, I assure you. I have similar IP issues in my area and I'm annoyed at the IP I have to use myself, but we do have abuse problems from tunnel brokers like HE. If you have an extraordinary need, I'd consider an IPBE. Hopefully we'll have a decision about the /32 block by the end of the weekend. Katietalk 15:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)