271–280 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what do you mean by topology? the only information leaked would be the number of computers making requests.
And what computer is making what requests. Now that i think about it, this cloud be the reason why youtube started making recommendations based on stuff i just watched in private browser tabs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Game servers usually want high clock speed.
You’d just use the VPS as a proxy with a publicly accessible IP, and tunnel the connection back to your home. That would add latency that might be undesirable for a game, but maybe not.
We should just make an IPv5 which takes a current address: 216.3.128.12 and makes it 0.0.0.0.216.3.128.12 So any address of the current length you just treat it as if it has zeroes in front, otherwise you use the longer length which allows for many more addresses. Problem solved.
If you manage to solve that problem, you'll probably have invented something a lot like NAT64, which TFA talks about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs are expected to delegate a /56 or /64 prefix to customers. Some are even delegating /48s. Mine delegates a /56. That should be enough for all your devices to randomly rotate IPs for a lifetime or a few without any NAT.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24999906 Shitty ISPs do exist, or at least they existed two years ago.
Everyone always goes with the "You don't need NAT, everything is globally routable!" argument, as if that's something that anybody wants. Everything on my network is going to go through my firewall anyway. I don't want anything on my network to be globally routable. Of course, this is not a good reason to not use IPv6, don't get me wrong. It's a problem that's easy to overcome, I just think it's not a good way to get…
> as if that's something that anybody wants. Of course I do. Why would you not want the option of easily allowing a device to be globally routable if you need it to be? I think routers should be more explicit about how you set up each new device on a private network anyway. Guest wifi can have a sane default. Private wifi could make a notification pop up on your trusted device, asking you if you want the now device t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what computer is making what requests. Now that i think about it, this cloud be the reason why youtube started making recommendations based on stuff i just watched in private browser tabs...
That's a very strong claim to make. I'd appreciate if you could provide a source to that statement!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what computer is making what requests. Now that i think about it, this cloud be the reason why youtube started making recommendations based on stuff i just watched in private browser tabs...
Look at what Android does with MAC address randomization on wireless networks. We will probably see something similar with IPv6.
It's been available for some time: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/pri...
On my macOS system, I currently have four IPv6 IPs (excluding the link-local IP), all of which are random.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what would be the best way forward to keep it that way in a IPv6-only future? Firewalls. You configure what traffic should be allowed from who to who. Default deny incoming traffic, and its the same behavior as when you had a NAT. Something having a routable IP address doesn't mean it needs to receive all traffic addressed to it.
My ISP does not allow BYOM (bring your own modem) and assigns me a /64 net, so I have a hard time running an (ipv6) router behind it that would do the firewalling.. I guess I'm stuck with ipv4 for the time being...
Everyone always goes with the "You don't need NAT, everything is globally routable!" argument, as if that's something that anybody wants. Everything on my network is going to go through my firewall anyway. I don't want anything on my network to be globally routable. Of course, this is not a good reason to not use IPv6, don't get me wrong. It's a problem that's easy to overcome, I just think it's not a good way to get…
As the parent suggests, IPv6 creates more work to prevent more exfiltration. It is already difficult enough with IPv4.
Could IPv6 fix a web infested with "tech" company intermediaries and return it to one where all participants can connect directly and if desired publish to audiences (without "tech" interplopers). That sort of proposal would make an interesting read for end users.