91–100 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I remember having to do a lot of port forwarding to get certain things to work behind a nat. Certainly doable but beyond the competence of a non-expert.
[flagged]
The predecessor of my ISP introduced full IPv6 support for all customers 15 years ago. The only argument against at this point is inertia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 provided some features people needed (larger addresses), made some changes born from experience (removing IP-level header checksums in favor of packet checksums like those in UDP and TCP, removing fragmentation), and then bundled in a pile of mandatory added complexity (DAD, SLAAC and router advertisements rather than DHCP, initially mandatory IPsec). If IPv6 had left out the mandatory added complexity, and just…
> […] and then bundled in a pile of mandatory added complexity (DAD, SLAAC and router advertisements rather than DHCP, initially mandatory IPsec). SLAAC and RA reduce complexity as you no longer need 'extra' infrastructure (DHCP) to get going: plug in and the router sends the information and you're done. You also get rid of the complexity of STUN/ICE/ etc as you no longer need NAT, so you just need hole punching for…
If you want the network to come up in a timely fashion, the new system needs to poke the network to get information proactively sent to it as soon as possible, at which point you have about the same level of complexity as poking a DHCP server. (With added bonus "this could happen asynchronously at any time and you never reliably know when your network is actually done being configured".)
If those standards are so valuable, they should have stood on their own, as optional things people could have adopted if they wanted to do things completely differently from IPv4. Meanwhile, people already have DHCP servers, and could have just told those DHCP servers to start giving out IPv6 addresses too.
The reaction I have every time I interact with IPv6 is that it seems incredibly hard to make a system just use the configuration you tell it to use and never ever listen to any configuration from the network.
[flagged]
> * "OMG Every device needs a publicly addressable IP!!!" > ok, but why? So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/ etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). > Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network? I don't know why this misconception is so wide spread: globally addressable ≠ globally reachable . Firewalls still exist w…
Ideally yes, but IRL they are related concepts. Things will get misconfigured, often by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VoIP. Two peers, each behind a CG-NAT (or other symmetric NAT), depend on somebody running a relay in order to be able to communicate. This makes it very expensive (and sometimes risky, since unrestricted relays can be used for all kinds of nefarious things too) to deploy any new VoIP service. I'd call that "broken by NAT". > everything works right now. Yes, everything that works right now works right now, but that's…
Doesn't that present a privacy issue? One can _casually_ infer who you are talking to merely by examining network traffic.
IPv6 (or more generally, the absence of NAPT) just changes the switch label from "try [not] to use direct connections, unless NAT gets in the way" to "[always|never] use direct connections".
In other words, it cleanly separates the two distinct concerns of privacy and connection topology. I think that's a good thing.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I think a lot of other commenters complaining about the parent commenter missing the IPv4/6 header size are missing the forest for the trees here. The main problems with IPv6 (that are why most customer-facing components are not switching to it anytime soon) are simple: 1. The address space is ludicrously unwieldy. Humans are good at remembering long numbers. We're quite bad at remembering random strings outside of p…
The length of IPv6 addresses is an advantage because people don't try typing them because they are so long. My home network have IPv6 and I have never had to enter IPv6 address. I don't know what my prefix is, I don't know any host addresses, I use mDNS to get to other hosts.
[flagged]
We need IPv6 because we're out of IPv4 addresses. When you launch a new ISP and knock on the door of a RIR like RIPE, they don't have any IPv4 addresses left to allocate and so you're put on a waiting list. The solution is IPv6. Even without allocating an address per device, without IPv6 just the status quo of every customer having an IP address is no longer possible. The predecessor of my ISP introduced full IPv6 su…
Instead, ipv6 created a separate world, with extra goals like making every device addressable (aka removing NAT), using randomized addresses, and resetting all ownership of existing blocks. "We're out of addresses" is not a good excuse for all that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is something very simple, with no self flogging and no circus hoops. I do not want to pay for a number. There is no shortage of numbers. In fact there is an infinite amount of them. There are many things I am forced to pay for and their prices keep going up and up and more things get added every year. Well on this one I fight back. I do not wish to pay for the use of an arbitrary number just so my device can be…
Of all of the arguments, I personally find this one the weakest. As you're describing your IP address makes it no different than a phone number for your mobile.
To be fair I have a bunch of instances with public IP addresses just so I can ssh into them easily. This situation made me look into how I'd get into these instances otherwise and indeed you can set up an appropriate endpoint and then run "aws ec2 instance-connect" to make a tunnel that gets you an ssh connection without needing the public IP, so just like that my needs for public IPs actually goes down pretty drasti…