Edmond's random techie stuffs

I have recently been migrating my docker based workload to a dualstack (IPv4 + IPv6) enabled Kuberntes cluster.  In this cluster I needed a SMTP Relay so that emails can be relayed out through my Google Apps account.  The default deployment of egos-tech/smtp states that The container accepts RELAY_NETWORKS environment variable which MUST start with : e.g :192.168.0.0/24 or :192.168.0.0/24:10.0.0.0/16 . I tried various things getting IPv6 address into the list, and after a large number of trial-and-error, I managed to get it to work with this config: --- apiVersion: v1 kind: ConfigMap metadata:      name: smtp-config      data:           RELAY_NETWORKS: ";10.0.0.0/8;127.0.0.0/8;172.16.0.0/12;192.168.0.0/16;fd00::/8" I believe the first letter in the environment variable actually doesn't need to start with a colon, instead it defines the delimiter. By switching it from a colon to semi-colon, it avoids conflicting wi...

TLDR In a nutshell, this allows you to:  Replace multiple S3 endpoint with a single custom CloudFront domain (e.g., for branding reasons) Use Path-Based behaviour in CloudFront to handle destination bucket (e.g., for app compatibility reasons) Combine the following: CloudFront Presigned URL - an "outer auth" for the request to be let in S3 Presigned Post - an "inner auth" against S3 for to POST request to be processed Design Diagram Points to note:  S3 Presigned Post URL The S3 endpoint generated is discarded The POST field containing signature (S3 Auth), policy, bucket name and key related to the upload is retained CloudFront Signed URL The URL is made up of CloudFront custom domain + Path of each bucket's associated CloudFront behaviour CloudFront signer adds query string to the URI with signatures, expirations, etc The Signed URL forms the outer credentials (CloudFront auth) to access the CloudFront behaviour These two are then combined and sent to the client...

This recipe it based on Hairy Biker's recipe (rip Dave) published on the BBC website . I adapted it for my own kitchen setup and ingredients that I have access to: M&S Canadian Very Strong White Bread Flour Bosch Standmixer (MUMS6ZM00G) Bosch Oven (HMG7764B1B) I am writing this recipe here so that it's easier for myself to follow. --- --- Time Required Total preparation: 60 minutes Total proofing: 105 minutes Baking: 35 minutes --- Ingredients List Yudane 30g strong white flour 60g milk , whole 60g water Dough - first pass 325g strong white flour 55g granulated sugar 7g instant yeast 6g salt 15g condensed milk Dough - second pass (Yudane) 120g milk , whole 1 egg , beaten Dough - third pass 55g butter , unsalted, softened Brushing before baking 1 egg , beaten 15g milk , whole --- Method Step 1 - Make Yudane Add the following ingredients into a saucepan: 30g strong white flour 60g milk , whole 60g water Set hob to 90°C and constantly stir until content reaches 65°C or con...

Good on Anker for shipping the product in recyclable packaging. Specs listed on the back of the box. Comes with a C8 power cable of reasonable quality, though I do wonder how long the rubbery texture would last before it turn into some sort of gooey mess.  The charger itself.  Specs printed on the bottom of the device.  Note that it comes with some decent sized rubber feet.  A hidden power LED lights up when plugged in - I really like this, gives a premium feel to the product! Port C1 Capabilities - 105 Watts Port C2 Capabilities - 65W Port C3 Capabilities - 19.98W Port C3 Capabilities - 19.98W Port C4 Capabilities - 19.98W Size comparison to the old Anker Charger It tapers a bit more than the older model, but it's definitely thicker than the older model.  It also weights a bit more - I'd say it's 50% chonkier by feel.  I'm pleased to see that the new charger still fits in my Bellroy Tech Kit (standard sized one).  Bit more of a snug fit than before th...

So glad something else managed to top the chart.  Also putting the phrase here, maybe it will catch on.

This is not going to be a full test report of sorts, but a quick note for those in similar boat, YMMV, pinch of salt, blah.  I've seen too many people on the internet saying CCR2004 (the SFP+ version) will do a shit job at routing traffic between ports, but never any supporting evidence, so I thought I share my own experience.  In my homelab I have a relative basic setup, with something like 10 IPv4 Firewall rules, 2 NAT rules, 1 bridge with VLANs. Routing performance on IPv4 I'm able to get something like 8Gbps consistent going between bridge ports. I seem to get a somewhat better performance on IPv6 maybe due to less firewall / NAT rules, something like 9Gbps.  Obviously if you have crap ton of rules like operating a MSP this will be miles different, but for basic setup I think this is a relatively good number for what this device can offer.  Happy home labbing!