11–20 of 54 posts
The resistance to switch to ipv6, or the comfort with the ipv4-born address exhaustion remedies, only helps an internet of consumers, not an internet of peers that create and share. If you are behind NAT or CG-NAT, you can only consume, not create. You can't host a server, expose a port. You are at the mercy of the big fish.
I actually made the unusual decision, last year, to go IPv6-only on a small website I operate. The reason why is that AWS changed their billing policy for public IPv4 addresses. This is a tiny website that people only access on their cell phones, so I can accept an occasional inconvenience for the marginal cost savings. I haven't heard of anyone else doing this, but I doubt I'm completely alone in trying to minimize…
The resistance to switch to ipv6, or the comfort with the ipv4-born address exhaustion remedies, only helps an internet of consumers, not an internet of peers that create and share. If you are behind NAT or CG-NAT, you can only consume, not create. You can't host a server, expose a port. You are at the mercy of the big fish.
Where I'm, I can choose 1 out of 1 broadband provider available in the area. With this provider, I can either have a public IPv4 address (or several) with their CPE in bridge mode, or DS-Lite, with IPv4 CGNAT without PCP and /64 for the IPv6 addresses (i.e. no address space for subnets, no prefix distribution) AND having to use their router with the limited settings they allow.
With offers like these, is it any wonder that I stick with IPv4?
The resistance to switch to ipv6, or the comfort with the ipv4-born address exhaustion remedies, only helps an internet of consumers, not an internet of peers that create and share. If you are behind NAT or CG-NAT, you can only consume, not create. You can't host a server, expose a port. You are at the mercy of the big fish.
My ISP is IPv4 only and I host plenty of shit and punch plenty of holes. That’s a function of my firewall not how many bits are in my IP address.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41893200
(The The APNIC article is a repost of the potaroo.net article.)
I don't understand the title. What's the "but" there? IPv6 being irrelevant and moving off IPv4 being irrelevant seem like they go hand in hand, if moving off IPv4 is irrelevant then of course IPv6 is irrelevant!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My ISP is IPv4 only and I host plenty of shit and punch plenty of holes. That’s a function of my firewall not how many bits are in my IP address.
You can’t punch any holes through carrier-grade NAT (CGNAT).
The resistance to switch to ipv6, or the comfort with the ipv4-born address exhaustion remedies, only helps an internet of consumers, not an internet of peers that create and share. If you are behind NAT or CG-NAT, you can only consume, not create. You can't host a server, expose a port. You are at the mercy of the big fish.
My ISP is IPv4 only and I host plenty of shit and punch plenty of holes. That’s a function of my firewall not how many bits are in my IP address.
The resistance to switch to ipv6, or the comfort with the ipv4-born address exhaustion remedies, only helps an internet of consumers, not an internet of peers that create and share. If you are behind NAT or CG-NAT, you can only consume, not create. You can't host a server, expose a port. You are at the mercy of the big fish.
My ISP is IPv4 only and I host plenty of shit and punch plenty of holes. That’s a function of my firewall not how many bits are in my IP address.
At least not without doing fancy stuff like using an externally-hosted VPN to shuttle connections to you.