131–140 of 198 posts
As it should. Date notwithstanding, I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux. I know some people don't care at all, but the internet was made to be addressable. IPv6 is the only shot we have to go back to that.
- I don't want my interfaces to have multiple IP addresses - I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs - I like NAT and it works fine - I don't want to use dynamic DNS just so I have set up a single home server without my ISP rotating my /64 for no reason (and no SLAAC is not an answer because I don't want multiple addresses per interface) - I don't need an entire /48 for my home network IPv6 won't hel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Temporary addresses are enabled by default in OSX, windows, android, and iOS. That's what, like 95% of the consumer non-server market? As for Linux, that's going to be up to each distro to decide what their defaults are. It looks like they are _not_ the default on FreeBSD, which makes sense because that OS is primarily targeting servers (even though I use it on my laptop).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? What would be the advantage in it?
Trivially easy do direct connections between devices (if desired), no issues when creating VPNs between networks using private ranges. What would be the disadvantage?
I don't want VPNs between private ranges.
I don't want publically-routable IP addresses on anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? Suddenly, your smart lightbulb is accessible by everyone. Not a great idea. > With IPv6, if you want a peer-to-peer connection between firewalled peers, you do a quick UDP hole punch and you're done - since everything has a unique IP, you don't even need to worry about remapping port numbers. There is no guarantee with IPv6 that hole punching works. It _usually_…
> Suddenly, your smart lightbulb is accessible by everyone. Not a great idea. The answer here is kinda that Wi-Fi isn't an appropriate networking protocol for lightbulbs (or most other devices that aren't high-bandwidth) in the first place. Smart devices that aren't high bandwidth (i.e. basically anything other than cameras) and that don't need to be internet accessible outside of a smart home controller should be us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something?
Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in a NAT-less world, the common advice is to use a firewall rule that disallows incoming connections by default. (And I'd certainly be worried if typical home routers were configured otherwise.) So either way, you'd need the average person to mess with their router configuration, if they want to allow incoming P2P connections without hole-punching tricks. At best, the lack of NAT might save you an address-discov…
UPnP has covered a huge percentage of use cases that actual users care about, and those who it doesn't cover are often able to do their own customization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The whole idea of temporary addresses fails at this because the network prefix becomes the correlation ID. So the same as the public IPv4 on a traditional home NAT setup?
Most home users do not have a static public IPv4 address - they have a single address that changes over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't write any mDNS software. Blame those guys.
Well I mean “those guys” did a good job and the network administrator might need to do some debugging.