ActivityPub Viewer

A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a request with the right Accept header to the server to view the underlying object.

Open in browser →
{ "@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", { "ostatus": "http://ostatus.org#", "atomUri": "ostatus:atomUri", "inReplyToAtomUri": "ostatus:inReplyToAtomUri", "conversation": "ostatus:conversation", "sensitive": "as:sensitive", "toot": "http://joinmastodon.org/ns#", "votersCount": "toot:votersCount", "Hashtag": "as:Hashtag" } ], "id": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288", "type": "Note", "summary": null, "inReplyTo": null, "published": "2024-05-22T08:12:44Z", "url": "https://ipv6.social/@litchralee_v6/112483735293896288", "attributedTo": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6", "to": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public" ], "cc": [ "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/followers" ], "sensitive": false, "atomUri": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288", "inReplyToAtomUri": null, "conversation": "tag:ni.hil.ist,2024-05-22:objectId=18298189:objectType=Conversation", "content": "<p>@wednesday@ni.hil.ist Your description sounds like what would be expected for a ULA and <a href=\"https://ipv6.social/tags/NAT64\" class=\"mention hashtag\" rel=\"tag\">#<span>NAT64</span></a> deployment, with the v4 CLAT address preferred over v6 ULA.</p><p>That said, if an RFC were authored to fix this, I&#39;m not sure how much would be gained. Already, end-to-end addressing isn&#39;t preserved when using ULA, except to another ULA dst. If all clients support IPv6, then the simple fix is to only have AAAA records for those dst.</p><p>For global destinations, there will be translation either way: NAT66 or NAT64</p>", "contentMap": { "en": "<p>@wednesday@ni.hil.ist Your description sounds like what would be expected for a ULA and <a href=\"https://ipv6.social/tags/NAT64\" class=\"mention hashtag\" rel=\"tag\">#<span>NAT64</span></a> deployment, with the v4 CLAT address preferred over v6 ULA.</p><p>That said, if an RFC were authored to fix this, I&#39;m not sure how much would be gained. Already, end-to-end addressing isn&#39;t preserved when using ULA, except to another ULA dst. If all clients support IPv6, then the simple fix is to only have AAAA records for those dst.</p><p>For global destinations, there will be translation either way: NAT66 or NAT64</p>" }, "updated": "2024-05-22T08:26:53Z", "attachment": [], "tag": [ { "type": "Hashtag", "href": "https://ipv6.social/tags/nat64", "name": "#nat64" } ], "replies": { "id": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288/replies", "type": "Collection", "first": { "type": "CollectionPage", "next": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288/replies?only_other_accounts=true&page=true", "partOf": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288/replies", "items": [] } }, "likes": { "id": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288/likes", "type": "Collection", "totalItems": 1 }, "shares": { "id": "https://ipv6.social/users/litchralee_v6/statuses/112483735293896288/shares", "type": "Collection", "totalItems": 0 } }