bootstrap: add a few /ip6 nodes

[ghost]

As the bootstrappers now have proper IPv6, we can start making use of it. Since configuring it over the weekend, IPv6 usage has already roughly quadrupled.

[whyrusleeping]

@lgierth do you want this in 0.4.5?

[ghost]

Ideally yes, I just wasn't sure if you had any reservations :)

[ghost]

Is there any place where we explicitly prefer /ip6 over /ip4? That'd be useful.

[jbenet]

yay

[whyrusleeping]

@lgierth that happens in libp2p in the addrutil sorter: https://github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-peerstore/blob/master/addr/sorting.go

[mib-kd743naq]

Linking here as very tightly related: ipfs/ipfs#221

The issue isn't theoretical - I actually was in a situation like this when I filed the ticket ( fully open 80/443 outbound, everything else was a hard REJECT )

[whyrusleeping]

@lgierth do we want to take this opportunity to add some 'standard' port bootstrappers?

[ghost]

Do you mean 4737?

[Kubuxu]

I think he meant 443 and 80.

[ghost]

I dunno -- we'll have /ws on ipfs.io:80 and /wss on ipfs.io:443 very soon, I figure that'd work?

[whyrusleeping]

@lgierth okay, I think we can merge this as is for 0.4.6 then, yeah?

[mib-kd743naq]

I dunno -- we'll have /ws on ipfs.io:80 and /wss on ipfs.io:443 very soon, I figure that'd work?

@lgierth will this fully address ipfs/ipfs#221 (comment) ( given one uses a 0.4.<distantfuture> go-ipfs instance )? Or will the ws-based transport be useful for the js-ipfs exclusively?

[ghost]

okay, I think we can merge this as is for 0.4.6 then, yeah?

Yes let's do it! 👍

Or will the ws-based transport be useful for the js-ipfs exclusively?

@mib-kd743naq I think it's pretty useful generally -- on the outside it just looks like regular HTTPS.