http: add IPv6 range support for NO_PROXY environment variable

[haramj]

This PR resolves the // TODO(joyeecheung): support IPv6. comment in internal/http.js by adding comprehensive support for IPv6 address ranges to the NO_PROXY environment variable.

Previously, the ProxyConfig class's shouldUseProxy method could only handle IPv4 address ranges. With this change, users can now specify IPv6 ranges (e.g., ::1-::100) to correctly bypass proxies for hosts within those ranges.

The implementation involves:

• A new helper function ipv6ToBigInt to convert 128-bit IPv6 addresses into BigInts for reliable numerical comparison.
• Updated shouldUseProxy logic to check if a host is within a given IPv6 range.

This update ensures the proxy bypass feature is robust and consistent with both IPv4 and IPv6 network standards.

New test cases have been added to test/client-proxy/test-http-proxy-request-no-proxy-ipv6.mjs to verify the new functionality.

Test

• A host within the specified IPv6 range (::1-::100) correctly bypasses the proxy.
• A host outside the specified IPv6 range correctly uses the proxy.

This ensures that the new feature works as expected and does not introduce regressions to existing functionality.

/cc @joyeecheung

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/http
• @nodejs/net

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.15385% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.19%. Comparing base (695f01f) to head (9a11599).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/internal/http.js	96.15%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #59950   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.19%   90.19%           
=======================================
  Files         771      771           
  Lines      264628   264646   +18     
  Branches    50237    50243    +6     
=======================================
+ Hits       238683   238710   +27     
+ Misses      16953    16925   -28     
- Partials     8992     9011   +19     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/http.js	92.78% <96.15%> (+0.45%)	⬆️

... and 33 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

[trivikr]

@haramj Can you please rebase, sign the first commit and force push?

It's required as per updated instructions

Your commit must contain the Signed-off-by line with your name and email address as an acknowledgement that you agree to the Developer Certificate of Origin

[haramj]

@haramj Can you please rebase, sign the first commit and force push?

It's required as per updated instructions

Your commit must contain the Signed-off-by line with your name and email address as an acknowledgement that you agree to the Developer Certificate of Origin

Thanks! I’ve rebased the branch onto the latest main and added the required Signed-off-by line to both commits.

[haramj]

@trivikr It looks like the failing test is unrelated to this change (parallel/test-repl-use-global failed with ERR_INSPECTOR_COMMAND in the BoringSSL shared-library job). Could someone please rerun the failed job?

[haramj]

@jasnell Thanks for the review. I updated the implementation to use BlockList for IPv6 proxy bypass ranges and all CI checks are now passing.

Could you please take another look when you have a chance?

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76644/

[haramj]

Hi @joyeecheung @jasnell, I've rebased the branch onto the latest upstream/main and force-pushed. The previous CI failures were due to the branch being significantly behind (580+ commits). Could you please take another look when CI passes? Thanks!