IPv6 address not recognised by Notifications > Excluded domains

I have a website that requires two different logins.

When accessing it via it’s IPv6 link-local address, I am getting notifications about updating the login details for both logins, every time I login, even though I have added that address to the list of Excluded domains.

Using the host name or IPv4 address results in no notifications.

Can the Excluded domains include IPv6 addresses?

In general: there is a bug causing frequent update prompts: Frequent notices to 'Update existing login' / 'Save (new) login' with latest browser extensions – so I would wait for browser extension 2025.12.0, with the fix, to assess that situation…

I don’t know… that’s what the Help Sites state:

Note that the fe80:: address is the same, but each time I add a new domain, the colon and the last 4 hexadecimal digits are removed from each previous fe80:: address.

So, it would seem that IPv6 addresses are not supported! Which is a bit of an oversight in 2025.

I would tend to agree… And it seems, there is no existing feature request for that. You could consider opening one about that.

Or you could try submitting a bug report on GitHub first, because if it’s accepted as a bug, it may be addressed faster.

1 Like

Looking at the github page, it’s not clear that they want bug reports there.

@Schrodingers_cat GitHub is exactly the right place for bug reports – here for the BW client apps (browser extension, desktop app, web vault): GitHub · Where software is built (–> “New issue”)

PS:

Feature Requests → Bitwarden Community Forum (here :wink:)
Bug Reports → GitHub

Thanks, I didn’t realise I had to go into clients first.

1 Like

Ah, important tip: on GitHub, it mustn’t look like a feature request! :sweat_smile:

Hopefully this is okay:

1 Like

Honestly, hard to predict in “edge cases” like this one… But just to prepare you: it will get closed on GitHub if they deem it the “expected behaviour” and “intended function” of the software (or in other cases: when something is not reproducible).

1 Like

This has been escalated for further investigation.

Congrat. It seems to have passed the first mark. If dev doesn’t come back and outright reject it, it may get addressed sometime, at least faster than a feature request!