People keep saying that IPv6 allows you to more easily host services, but you still have to support IPv4.

Try connecting to your IPv6-only service on Hotel WiFi -- you usually can't.

It's unfortunate, but IPv6 doesn't really solve any problems for a home user. And I say this as someone that has deployed IPv6 at home before.

▲

mattypg a day ago | parent | next [-]

> It's unfortunate, but IPv6 doesn't really solve any problems for a home user.

CG-NAT and strict NAT in general. Newer ISPs often force users onto CG-NAT, and my consoles have had numerous issues with NAT in general over the years. ISP routers also often make fixing this an opaque or impossible problem for the user.

I don’t think IPv6 is the best thing ever, but I do think it solves the problems IPv4 did along with some annoying issues IPv4 struggled with.

▲

brandonkal a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It does make it easier. IPv6 pinholes are simpler than port forwarding. My IPv4 is not static but my IPv6 prefix is. So I don’t need dynamic DNS. I have no IPv4 port forwards, instead I run snid on a VPS to support legacy internet clients and call it a day.

	▲	avidiax a day ago \| parent [-]
		https://github.com/AGWA/snid So you basically have a cloud server and a domain with a wildcard record, and you then forward IPv4 through IPv6? I think this somewhat proves my point that IPv6 doesn't solve much for self-hosting. You still need some kind of working IPv4 setup. You are using IPv6 in place of either a reverse proxy or something like tailscale, which I suppose is more convenient.