If "applies only to IPv6" is an optional decision someone could make, then it's not part of the definition of a whitelist system for IPs, right?
The prior comment was responding directly to your comment, not any comment preceding that.
Of course it’s no longer by definition if you expand the scope beyond an ipv6 whitelist as there are an infinite number of possible whitelists.
The first comment with the word "whitelist". Before I entered the conversation. This comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44449821
lxgr was challenging the idea that you would treat all IPv6 traffic as suspicious.
You justified it by saying that "by definition" "a whitelist system" would do that.
I want your definition of "a whitelist system". Not one of the infinite possible definitions, the one you were using right then while you wrote that comment.
> if you expand the scope beyond an ipv6 whitelist
Your comment before that was talking about IP filtering in general, both v4 and v6!
And then lxgr's comment was about both v4 and v6.
So when you said "a whitelist system" I assumed you were talking about IP whitelists in general.
If you weren't, if you jumped specifically to "IPv6 whitelist", you didn't answer the question they were asking. What is the justification to treat all IPv6 as suspicious? Why are we using the definition of 'IPv6 whitelist' in the first place?
