281–290 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't CGNAT also mess up things like Nintendo Switch online multiplayer?
Nintendo should really enable IPv6 on the Switch to help with this
I have fully implemented IPv6 in my home network. I have even implemented an IPv6-Only network. It fully works, including accessing IPv4 only websites like github.com via DNS64 and NAT64 at my router. The only practically useful thing about my IPv6 enabled network is that I can run globally routable services on my lan, without NAT port mapping. Of course, only if the client is also IPv6. Other than this one use case,…
I had to reluctantly deploy ipv6 on my home network because of ISP requirements + will to use pihole. Ipv6 is hard. I had to learn quite a bit to make it work and not only I see no value, but it is significantly more difficult to use dire to the address length. I think IPv6 is a missed opportunity, it was probably designed by experts that did not take into account the population that will use it (not the one users wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do dynamic address allocations matter? Most IPv4 consumer WAN addresses are also dynamic. I’m asking, because I’m an advocate of having your gateway advertise a separate, stable ULA /64 in conjunction with the globally-routable dynamic /64. This gives you a stable set of addressable LAN IPs, and you can usually ignore the dynamic globally routable IPs. Granted this won’t work for everyone, but if dynamic global a…
It matters, because when the prefix changes, it changes IP addresses of every single device in your network. As you wrote, internally, you can use ULA. But you cannot open access from outside, because your firewall rules will become invalid with prefix change. With classic IPv4 NAT, your internal addresses don't change, so your port forwarding works, even if the WAN address changes. Together, with a single /64 -- whi…
My solution for my home network was to write a script that periodically checks my IPv6 prefix and updates the firewall rules and DNS if it ever changes. It doesn't feel like a great way to do it but it seems to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently moved to a 'cheap' ISP because I could get double the speed for half the price. They use CG-NAT and it's been awful. I don't need to forward any ports but seemingly because I share an IP with a billion people I get Captchas everywhere (Google, Cloudflare etc.). I was even blocked from accessing Reddit without an account at some point.
Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites. They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.
It's called "Named-Data Network".
When AWS started charging for IPv4 addresses I started switching to IPv6. I spent a few days getting it all up and running. I thought it was OK but my router kept crashing every day, then I noticed I can't get working from some places like my office. Gave up, never again its just not worth it. I moved to another hosting service that didn't charge.
> Gave up, never again its just not worth it.
Maybe when you upgrade your router to one that cares about IPv6 it will work. Never say never. Also...
> I moved to another hosting service that didn't charge.
That's not going to last. The price of having an IPv4 address must go up over time since demand will continue to increase and it will (already is at some places such as Hetzner and other managed hosts) cost more than IPv6 which is usually a free address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What country is that where poor people can’t afford an IP address? Is it a real place?
From the article, IPv4 only has 3.03 billion unique, routable addresses. The world population is 8.2 billion. So there's only enough IPv4 addresses for 1 unique address per 3 people on the planet. But of course, in reality, huge swathes of the IP address range are held by big companies (like amazon), universities and the US military. Its very common for whole streets or neighbourhoods to collectively share a single I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only practically useful thing about my IPv6 enabled network is that I can run globally routable services on my lan, without NAT port mapping. Of course, only if the client is also IPv6. A couple of other practically useful things: - You never get address collisions when connecting to someone else's VPN, or connecting to your home network via VPN from someone else's private network (if you've set that up) - If t…
so for anyone that "just browses the web" (which is overwhelming majority) there is virtually no difference/benefit? I don't play online games, don't use VPN, have a couple of services on my local RPi that has port forwarded on router and that's it... ipv6 could be handy when testing some service on my laptop and trying with external services but this happens so rarely that it's not an issue... on the flipside, whene…
Our current patterns of internet behaviour are limited by IPv4, so almost by construction nobody does things that need IPv6.
Few people made international journeys before deep water navigation; watched live streams before Twitch; or had pizza delivered at 4am before dominos.
This may be a random question, but do any of you have a working code (preferably C or Lua, without regexes but with regexes works too) for: 1) checking if a given string is a valid IPv6 address, and 2) checking if this IPv6 address is in the range? It should handle both IPv4 and IPv6. It must handle edge cases (number of chunks being 8, numbers must be less than 65535 if I am correct, then there is some stuff regardi…
I have fully implemented IPv6 in my home network. I have even implemented an IPv6-Only network. It fully works, including accessing IPv4 only websites like github.com via DNS64 and NAT64 at my router. The only practically useful thing about my IPv6 enabled network is that I can run globally routable services on my lan, without NAT port mapping. Of course, only if the client is also IPv6. Other than this one use case,…
IPv4 is "good enough", but we could do some things to extend its usage further.
First, adopt service location in DNS, and being to retire it at the TCP port-number layer. Then we could run more than one website per ip address, and this would significantly increase resilience against censorship. Rotating ports for censored websites is a significantly easier task than rotating IPs for them since it does not involve routing changes. This could be done with "here and now" technology.