Skip to content

feat: force ipv6 via api6 call rather than api64 - #190

Open
418error wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/force-api6-call
Open

feat: force ipv6 via api6 call rather than api64#190
418error wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/force-api6-call

Conversation

@418error

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What

We've been investigating some issues around IPV6 users seeing "flip flop" behaviour
with the cli intermittently returning an IPV4 address via the api64 endpoint, where
it should be only returning an ipv6 for that user, from what we can see this is
potentially an intermittent issue with the api64 api so are forcing all users to
hit the api6 endpoint, for ipv6 users with will be valid and for ipv4 it will
through an nxdomain error which we will treat as "the user has no ipv6"

Other changes:

  • rename of GetMyIPs2() to GetMyIPs()
  • removal of the checkGotIP() function in favour of using the standard library
    netip package for validation of ipv4 and ipv6 addresses, with optional CIDR suffixes.
  • consistent ip validation across derived and defaulted in the config

How to review

Describe the steps required to test the changes.

Who can review

Describe who worked on the changes, so that other people can review.

We've been investigating some issues around IPV6 users seeing "flip flop" behaviour
with the cli intermittently returning an IPV4 address via the api64 endpoint, where
it should be only returning an ipv6 for that user, from what we can see this is
potentially an intermittent issue with the api64 api so are forcing all users to
hit the api6 endpoint, for ipv6 users with will be valid and for ipv4 it will
through an nxdomain error which we will treat as "the user has no ipv6"

Other changes
- rename of GetMyIPs2() to GetMyIPs()
- removal of the checkGotIP() function in favour of using the standard library
netip package for validation of ipv4 and ipv6 addresses, with optional CIDR suffixes.
- consistent ip validation across derived and defaulted in the config
@418error
418error requested a review from a team as a code owner July 22, 2026 10:07
@418error
418error marked this pull request as draft July 22, 2026 10:07
@418error
418error marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2026 12:55

@MebinAbraham MebinAbraham left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only a functional review ✅ . Working as expected. 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants