It could be that they don't want to implement IP bans in IPv6.

How does IP bans work in IPv6 case? One just blocks whole /64 or /56 address range?

	▲	throw0101d 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I have not had a deal with this, but if I was going to, I would start at the /64 and move up by nibble (4-bit) boundaries: /64, /60, /56, /52, /48. /56 is often recommended as the minimum as for a (residential) customer. /48 is considered a "site" address prefix, and is the smallest allocation that can be advertised in BGP: * https://blog.apnic.net/2020/06/01/why-is-a-48-the-recommende... * https://www.infoblox.com/blog/ipv6-coe/a-48-for-every-site-a... You get 65k subnets with it, which is what you get with 10/8.

c0balt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or the most likely more expensive rate limiting (computational wise)

	▲	michh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, given how the site performs on average I don't think they've optimized so much that the extra cpu cycles of ANDing with the fixed constant of 2^64-1 and then looking up or hashing a 16 byte integer - whatever they do - rather than a 4 byte one would increase the load significantly. Let's be pessimistic and say it's 20 extra cpu cycles, that's not gonna be much of a problem if their load balancers were made in the past 20 years.