191–198 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most home users do not have a static public IPv4 address - they have a single address that changes over time.
> Most home users do not have a static public IPv4 address - they have a single address that changes over time. I'd be curious to know the statistics on this: I would hazard to guess that for most ISPs, if your router/modem does not reboot, your IPv4 address (and IPv6 prefix) will not change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? > What would be the advantage in it? Not having to deal with ICE/TURN/STUN. Being able to develop P2P applications without having to build out that infrastructure (anyone remember Skype's "supernodes"?).
This is not something I ever want any device on my network to do.
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.
I mean, so many reasons. Not the least of which is carrier grade NAT is out. And that alone implies so much cost savings, performance increase, and home user flexibility . I'm struggling to assume good faith on your question, since it's so strange. I feel like I need to start from scratch explaining the internet, since asking this question reveals a lack of knowledge about everything networking.
I don't have CG Nat, I choose a proper ISP. Opening a hole in my ipv6 firewall or forwarding a port in in my ipv4 firewall is effectively the same thing, I define the policy (allow traffic arriving on $address on tcp/1234 to this server on vlan 12) and it goes live. Away from home, like I am at the moment, I vpn all my traffic back home, to work, or to a mullvad endpoint. Neither the hotel wifi nor tethering off my p…
I'll just leave this here if you want to find out https://www.catchpoint.com/benefits-of-ipv6
Earlier quoted context omitted.
v6 mostly is just v4 with more bits, and it has a reasonable migration path from v4 too. I don't think a more reasonable migration path is even possible given the constraints of v4. About the only thing new in v6 that's not already in v4 is SLAAC, which isn't very complicated. Routing works the same, the addresses work the same, DNS, TCP, firewalling etc all work the same. If anything they removed complexity by dropp…
The biggest thing is all the v4 addresses are no longer valid in v6. They had a choice and went with making a separate parallel network with new routes. This means DNS DHCP etc work similarly but are completely different, and the separation between DNS v4 and v6 of course is never clear in any router UI, network config file, etc. And the routes themselves are different. SLAAC itself isn't complicated, but it means in…
::203.0.113.42 (tunnels to 203.0.113.42 over v4)
::ffff:203.0.113.42 (opens a v4 connection via an AF_INET6 socket)
64:ff9b::203.0.113.42 (translates to v4 at nearest NAT64 point)
I think I can count that as falling under both "something it already does" and "something that's impossible".
Your laptop will just get some IPs as appropriate for the network it's on, and then it'll use them. You don't need to think hard about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By debugging I mean just checking if you have not blocked broadcast packets at the firewall or some similar misconfiguration. I doubt it’s actual bugs when it doesn’t work. On your second point, it’s actually more resilient than DHCP because it works with IPv6 too.
Idk, just checked my LAN-connected Mac's arp tables now and none of the hostnames are there, even after I ping the multicast. Haven't messed with any settings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk, just checked my LAN-connected Mac's arp tables now and none of the hostnames are there, even after I ping the multicast. Haven't messed with any settings.
Does anything respond to the multicast ping? If that doesn’t work then mDNS isn’t going to either. Router config is the likely culprit.
Router is all default except that I port-forwarded something. Funny enough, it sees the hostnames. I'm guessing it's some problem with both my computers, but no real need to fix this because I memorized the addrs already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to elaborate? Non-sophisticated users don't deserve IP reachability?
I used to have it enabled long ago. It's insecure. Random cheap devices will open up ports with upnp without the user noticing. It doesn't work that well either, cause hosts will conflict on ports. P2P applications have better ways to establish connectivity.
If a random device/application wants to insecurely communicate with somebody/something, it will find a way, I agree on that.