You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is it possible that all of the car's Internet access is mediated through the VPN connection back to Tesla? You might give http://www.whatismyip.com a try from the car browser and see what you get.
Well, those plus 192.168.x.x and 172.16.x.x through 172.31.x.x. The relevant RFC is https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918. There's no standards-related reason 1NJ85D shouldn't be able to reach these since after all, 1NJ85D's browser isn't trying to "route anything on the Internet" in this case, it's within the private address scope (the local network). But wk057's guess that Tesla is using RFC 1918 space for their own nefarious purposes seems very likely. It's messy of them to stomp on the entire RFC 1918 space when they're surely only using a small portion of it, but then again everything about RFC 1918 is a kludge.Maybe people need to be reminded what a private IP is....
A ten-dot or 10.x.x.x
These are "not routed on the Internet" by definition (of the RFC rules).
Not really, that's a pretty standard security policy. I wonder if it allows connections to RFC 6598 space.It's messy of them to stomp on the entire RFC 1918 space when they're surely only using a small portion of it, but then again everything about RFC 1918 is a kludge.
Depends on what you think is being secured from whom. If you consider the browser to be inside Tesla's security perimeter and they're letting you out to the Internet as a special case, then I guess you could call this "standard security policy". OTOH if you consider the browser to belong to you, and Tesla is allowing certain traffic into their perimeter via the VPN, then good practice would be for them to VPN the minimum set of what they need and leave the rest of it alone. I suppose maybe they grab all the 1918 stuff and VPN it because it lets them change their internal addressing scheme without having to push new configs out to the fleet, but really? They need to reserve *all* of 10/8, 172.16/12 *and* 192.168/16 just in case they need a few million extra addresses in the future? It seems sloppy. They could've taken (say) net ten for themselves and left the rest alone. Oh well, whatever.Not really, that's a pretty standard security policy.
Good question, someone could try. Not me, I don't even have my car yet much less the stomach for tinkering with my home infrastructure.I wonder if it allows connections to RFC 6598 space.