21–30 of 45 posts
Doesn't xlat do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that e.g. many programs written using Go are not like that. They should support IPv6 out of the box though.
Go doesn't link against libc?
However, if you don't need to pull in any c libraries, you can use `CGO_ENABLED=0 go build` to build completely without linking to libc on linux. It is pretty common that applications will do that if they are not using the parts of the go standard library that need libc, and don't pull in C libraries.
BTW, my ISP has been promising a /60 for many months now. Apparently, it's about their "provisioning software" they inherited. Huh, equipment less of a concern in this case.
Still wondering when my IPv4-only ISP will consider starting to offer IPv6 service.
The tnat tool is quite clever. I previously ran a IPv6 only infrastructure and it worked really well, except for some "old" applications written in C which only handled IPv4. Which I had known of this hack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just routers: android phones since 4.3 and iOS 12 both include a CLAT implementation to do just that. clatd https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd/ is a nice and practical CLAT implementation: it does not "require" dns64 but can use it for single stateful translation instead of double
Windows 10+ has a native 464XLAT implementation for use with cellular networks as well. Most of the pieces are in place already but not all clients operate the same way. I think there's stil some streamlining to be done before any ISP will bother implementing such technology into their routers.
Come on github! It's not that hard!
Meanwhile, one of the most annoying holdouts on the service side is github.com - I've had a collection of v6-only systems for years and github seems to be the one recurring thing that requires bolting on kludge of some sort. Come on github! It's not that hard!
Most of the services I need for work do support IPv6 and the only exceptions is GitHub.
Indeed, the transition to IPv6-only networks is a timely and important step, and this is an interesting approach. In my opinion, NAT64 in combination with DNS64 presents the most practical solution for home networks. This approach can be fully implemented by consumer routers, eliminating the need for any changes to client devices. If router manufacturers were to make NAT64 with DNS64 a default feature or, at the very…
If v6 people didn't hate nat with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns [1] we could have had a smooth ipv6 path with the only necessary change being on consumer routers.
Honest question: Does anybody have experience with this behind an ISP CGNAT network that provides IPV6 as well? I'm getting worn down from trying to deal with CGNAT and IPv4 for my homelab...
I do. Ask your questions. And please post the results of `dig -t AAAA ipv4only.arpa @$DNS` with $DNS being each of the DNS servers from your ISP: "Using draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic, the CLAT discovers the Pref64/n. The CLAT component sends an AAAA query to the DNS64 for the well-known IPv4-only name “ipv4only.arpa”. The Pref64/n is derived from the received AAAA response. The CLAT determines the used…
; > DiG 9.18.13 > -t AAAA ipv4only.arpa @8.8.8.8 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ipv4only.arpa. IN AAAA
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: ipv4only.arpa. 568 IN SOA sns.dns.icann.org. noc.dns.icann.org. 2022072100 7200 3600 604800 3600
;; Query time: 14 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) (UDP) ;; WHEN: Mon May 01 14:10:21 EDT 2023 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 99 """
DNS2 209.244.0.3 (it's at Level3) """ dig -t AAAA ipv4only.arpa @209.244.0.3
; > DiG 9.18.13 > -t AAAA ipv4only.arpa @209.244.0.3 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ipv4only.arpa. IN AAAA
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: ipv4only.arpa. 1481 IN SOA sns.dns.icann.org. noc.dns.icann.org. 2022072100 7200 3600 604800 3600
;; Query time: 10 msec ;; SERVER: 209.244.0.3#53(209.244.0.3) (UDP) ;; WHEN: Mon May 01 14:11:08 EDT 2023 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 88 """
Major question: is something like this feasible with Opnsense as a router, or should I only try it with a Linux solution?
Minor related questions: * How much does this complicate my firewalling? * Do I deal with firewalling IPV6 only from the outside world? * Or do I need to worry about RFC1918 addresses on my LAN "leaking" out to the IPv4 world via the IPv6 connection?