I'm surprised no one has yet done React SSR in Rails using Graal (using the polyglot bridge between Rails running on Truffleruby and React on Graal.js).
Yeah, I see that. My intention was "it's a macOS firewall (like little snitch)", not that it was "free and open source (like little snitch)". Apologies, but I can't edit the title anymore.
No worries. I didn't object to the title, so much as to the parent comment that suggested the original question was something that should have been obvious from the title, when it was not.
Thanks for writing this up. I saw your original comment a while back was intrigued, and I got it working last weekend on a 2-vm vagrant private network setup, but only by constructing the network prefix by using a 32 bit ULA prefix concatenated on the full 32 bit ipv4. I think it worked (hooked up wireshark to a tcpdump of the vm's interface to the private network and saw the 6-in-4 packets) but I didn't need to use the `6rd-relay_prefix` argument to ip tunnel, do you have any idea why that might be? I suspect 32+32 is the default (vs. your 40+24), and if you want to only use the lower 24 bits of the ipv4, you need to indicate to the kernel what netmask you are using on your ipv4 network ("6rd relay prefix"). I guess that would buy you either more randomness in your ULA prefix, or some more ipv6 subnets per ipv4 vm.
You can explore this a bit further and set up some net namespaces, connect them to the host vm via a bridge device, assign them ipv6 addresses from the vm host /64 network, and then set up a default route inside each container to the /32 or /40 you're using via the vm host's address on the host local /64. It's cool to see one container on host 1 talk to another on host 2. You're basically subnetting the /40 for each host; each host is analogous to a household in 6rd, and the containers are like your devices on your lan with globally routable ipv6 addresses (except we're using a ULA prefix instead of a globally routable ipv6 prefix assigned to an ISP, so our containers are not globally addressable - whatever). I'd guess this is what the CNI thing you mention does under the hood. For others who are interested in this, it's basically combining OP's article with https://iximiuz.com/en/posts/container-networking-is-simple/ from a couple months ago.
The Teredo part was very interesting as well, I had not thought to worry about non-udp/tcp compatible intermediate systems.
A ULA prefix is, properly, 48 bits long -- `fd` plus 40 bytes of random data. Using the full 32 bits of IPv4 means that you'll be using only 24 bytes of randomness there.
Does this matter? Probably not. But when I have the option, I like to conform to the RFCs.
Tailscale looks awesome but I would love a tier between “free single user with gmail” and “$10/user/month + GSuite/etc” (GSuite itself is $5/user/month I think?). Something like 1Password’s family plan, with the ability to use gmail accounts.
Then I would use it for my family, e.g. I could replace DynDNS + port forwarding I set up so my dad can control his home automation software (Hass.io) from his iPhone app, even off the WiFi. I’m unfortunately just not willing to set up/shell out for GSuite/Active Directory/Office365 for my family.
What really hooked me was your story about the medical practice a little while back.
Right... "they're already melted!" as the adage goes. They do exhibit passive decay heat removal, which is a major safety advantage allowing for walk-away safety. The thing that has not been demonstrated at commercial scale yet though is whether or not the already-melted fuel can be contained properly without plating out all over the heat exchangers, etc. I'm sure it can be done. Just will take some patience.
I guess it sounds like there has been an accident if you read it with "claims" being the verb of the sentence. But that doesn't seem right... molten salt reactors don't exist (yet), so how could they melt down? Plus, why would a reactor be claiming that it's melting down? I dunno, very weird.
So, if you read it again, you can see that another way to parse the sentence is with "claims" as the noun and "melt down" as the verb. Now it's makes perfect sense because molten salt reactors are still in experimental form.
I dunno, seems like a fine title to me. Maybe you are not actually reading every word from the title?
> molten salt reactors don't exist (yet), so how could they melt down?
Yes they do.
> Plus, why would a reactor be claiming that it's melting down?
Maybe they were lying before? It's definitely confusing, but the title parses correctly that way, so it's not obvious that a different word is the verb.
Negative temperature coefficients of reactivity matter to keep an operating reactor stable and prevent rapid overpower accidents a'la Chernobyl. All modern reactors exhibit this characteristic. However, the vast majority of risk in reactors today is that the fission energy doesn't all come out at the moment of fission. Some of it (roughly 7%) comes out after shutdown as exponentially-decaying radiation of the fission products. This decay heat (as it's called) is the primary safety hazard of today's reactors because there's enough of it to breach the reactor vessel if something goes wrong (a'la Fukushima). The Fukushima chain reaction shut down perfectly after the earthquake. The decay heat removal systems failed after the tsunami came along. The decay heat melted the fuel and cladding without cooling.
MSRs and other advanced reactors have passive decay heat removal by making use of different coolants (molten salt, liquid metal, etc.) and natural circulation air heat exchangers.
