When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
netrinos.com
When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#2Why not IPv6? Pretending that it doesn't exist??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_transition_mechan...
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#3Shameless plug - this is exactly the same problem that our team had when we had to maintain a bunch of our customer's servers. All of the subnets were same, and we had to jump through hoops just to access those servers - vpns, port forwarding, dynamic dns with vnc - we've tried it all. That is why we developed https://sshreach.me/ - now it's a click of a button.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#4Why not IPv6? Pretending that it doesn't exist?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_transition_mechan...
IPv6 solves the addressing problem, not the reachability problem. Good luck opening ports in the stateful IPv6 firewalls in the scenarios outlined in TFA:
> And that assumes a single NAT. Many sites have a security firewall behind the ISP modem, or a cellular modem in front of it. Double or triple NAT means configuring port forwarding on two or three devices in series, any of which can be reset or replaced independently.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#5This is basically what I use tailscale & their magicdns feature for. I manage a few locally hosted jellyfin servers for myself and some family members, and its the same problem. I just added tailscale to them all and now I can basically do ssh parents.jellyfin.ts.net or inlaws.jellyfin.ts.net
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#6Why not IPv6? Pretending that it doesn't exist?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_transition_mechan...
IPv6 solves the addressing problem, not the reachability problem. Good luck opening ports in the stateful IPv6 firewalls in the scenarios outlined in TFA: > And that assumes a single NAT. Many sites have a security firewall behind the ISP modem, or a cellular modem in front of it. Double or triple NAT means configuring port forwarding on two or three devices in series, any of which can be reset or replaced independen…
With IPv6 you don’t forward ports at all. The device already has a public address.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#7One step beyond this is the multi-subnetted network on each side. You get the DNAT working, but then suddenly the app gets more complex over time and suddenly you're calling 192.168.2.x, which leads to async routes. Some traffic works, some traffic works one way, and other traffic disappears.
Then you as the client/app manager pull your hair out as the network team tells you everything is working fine.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#8Why not IPv6? Pretending that it doesn't exist?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_transition_mechan...
IPv6 solves the addressing problem, not the reachability problem. Good luck opening ports in the stateful IPv6 firewalls in the scenarios outlined in TFA: > And that assumes a single NAT. Many sites have a security firewall behind the ISP modem, or a cellular modem in front of it. Double or triple NAT means configuring port forwarding on two or three devices in series, any of which can be reset or replaced independen…
I'm not really seeing a reason why it would be impossible to open firewalls in that scenario. More work, sure, but by no means impossible. In any case TFA says right up front that it is trying to solve the problem of overlapping subnets, which IPv6 solves nicely.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 solves the addressing problem, not the reachability problem. Good luck opening ports in the stateful IPv6 firewalls in the scenarios outlined in TFA: > And that assumes a single NAT. Many sites have a security firewall behind the ISP modem, or a cellular modem in front of it. Double or triple NAT means configuring port forwarding on two or three devices in series, any of which can be reset or replaced independen…
With IPv6 you don’t forward ports at all. The device already has a public address.
That's the addressing problem, although I have some bad news on that: NAT is used with IPv6 in some places.
The reachability problem is, even with public addresses, sometimes you have to do the same thing to "configure port forwarding" with stateful IPv6 firewalls as with double or triple NAT IPv4.
Re: When Every Network is 192.168.1.x
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 solves the addressing problem, not the reachability problem. Good luck opening ports in the stateful IPv6 firewalls in the scenarios outlined in TFA: > And that assumes a single NAT. Many sites have a security firewall behind the ISP modem, or a cellular modem in front of it. Double or triple NAT means configuring port forwarding on two or three devices in series, any of which can be reset or replaced independen…
I'm not really seeing a reason why it would be impossible to open firewalls in that scenario. More work, sure, but by no means impossible. In any case TFA says right up front that it is trying to solve the problem of overlapping subnets, which IPv6 solves nicely.
It's completely impossible if you simply don't have the necessary access. Not everybody can administer all firewalls upstream from them.
Nor can everyone control whether their connection supports v6, unfortunately.