This is already a feature in the software and has been for years. Anytime the car is accessed remotely a phone icon is shown on screen and you can click it to see what is accessing.

It sounds like this woman just wasn't aware of the control he had over the car until the parental control message popped up sometime in the 12 day span. Since the article doesn't mention anything after those dates, she was likely able to gain back control.

I certainly understand why people don't want connected cars but I can also understand the convenience factor. Yes, this amount of control over a car could potentially be used to put someone in danger (40kph on the highway isn't safe). But other than ensuring reasonable safeguards against speed controls on a highway, how would Tesla or any other manufacturer ensure convenient access to these remote features for the legitimate owner of the car? I guess one way would be to verify account information against an email or phone number that were used at purchase, only allow transfer of the remote control access by written authorization, and enable 2FA so only someone with access to the owner's email or phone can log in. I guess this still doesn't limit an abusive partner that simply just takes the victims phone or forces them to sign up using the abuser's information. And even so, is it Tesla's duty to ensure abusive partners don't abuse remote control? At best, they have a duty to ensure remote control cannot put the driver into a dangerous situation. Maybe they could have a local-only override code that allows an authenticated driver to temporarily cancel any remote control. Maybe all a remote user could do is reset the code but not be able to set a new one.

What changes to IPv6 would you make to make it easier to transition?

Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6. If IPv6 and IPv4 would be essentially the same from the get go, IPv4 would be a niche 20 years.

Sure everything above IPv6 have, but it took years and years of screaming to get it.

> Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6.

All of those things exist in IPv6.

And it is physically impossible for DNS to be the same, as you have to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A7" address (for "IPv7" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.

> All of those things exist in IPv6.

And it has not existed at the start of the IPv6 and is one of the many reasons why after all those years we are having a poor penetration of IPv6.

To reduce doing things twice there is NAT64/646XLAT. How many v4 addresses have you memorized, I normally use DNS or mDNS.

that reduces part of the scope for some of the customers

Do you have HW3 or HW4?

The newest FSD on HW4 was very good in my opinion. Multiple 45min+ drives where I don’t need to touch the controls.

Still not paying $8k for it. Or $100 per month. Maybe $50 per month.

It's your sanity (and money) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HW3, unfortunately. Missed the HW4 refresh by a couple of months.

What holds them back though? Even my shitty self-hosted website on a not-so-known VPS supports IPv6.

I'm assuming priorities and convincing the old guard it's something to do

I did not have to put any additional engineering effort into it though.

Because in your own words what you built is "a shitty self-hosted website", not a complex web of distributed services that need to talk to each-other.

So NAT64?

https://www.nat64.net

What do you do about IoT devices?

Why would that be a desirable quality? Wifi devices (using Matter or not) live on the same network as my PC - meaning a compromised lightbulb (or one that hasn't been updated) can be used to infiltrate and attack my home computers.

Thread+ Matter, despite using a different radio, suffers from the same issue, since a border router is on the Wifi network, a smart bulb using Thread can theoretically access my PC.

Yes, I'm sure there are ways to fix this, but why have the problem in the first place?

Zigbee is entirely incompatible networking standard, and doesn't have this problem.

DevContainers allow for setting up your IDE with extensions, rules, and other configuration. They also support Docker compose so migration shouldn't be that bad

> DevContainers allow for setting up your IDE with extensions, rules, and other configuration.

Are people sharing their editor configs with this? I thought it was a way of getting a development environment setup, but those shouldn't have editor extensions and configuration.

Yes, certain extensions and settings (formatting) go along with setting up the dev environment:

https://containers.dev/supporting

You’re going to have to explain that one.

I don’t see how CGNAT does anything but allow easier access to attacks (using private ip space outside of the local network)

All the details can be found in the EUROPOL publications begging for it to be banned.

IIRC there was some hullabaloo made with RIPE in ~2017. Half of it was "go to IPv6 and it isn't a problem" and the other half was "or also log the source ports so we can complete the identification through CG-NAT".

It's nearly 8 years later, we haven't moved to IPv6, and they stopped making noise so I'm left to assume they either got more source port logging or found some other method?

politics still clinging to the idea of identifying ppl by obvious traffic meta-data

There is people using chef/kitchen knifes for murder too. That doesn't mean we should regulate them for army use and monitor all cooks. Yet this is what many but certainly not all decision makers are doing. Good, fundamental, stuff is happening too, such as RPKI for example. Some "politics" is definitely not happy about that, but its good for the internet.

Ah, allows hiding behind a massively shared single address with less traceability.

Bangs but better