|
| ▲ | the_mitsuhiko 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The widespread deployment of NAT and VPNs has counter acted the market forces that were assumed to make IPv6 appealing. |
| |
| ▲ | throw0101a 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The widespread deployment of NAT and VPNs has counter acted the market forces that were assumed to make IPv6 appealing. Tell that to everyone who is behind CG-NAT and has issues with (e.g.) video games. Or all the (small(er)) ISPs that have to layout CapEx for translation boxes. | | |
| ▲ | AtlasBarfed 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn't CGnat due to IPv6 use on the mobiles? You could quit and say that's an IPv6 problem that didn't get solved in the IPv6 engineering | |
| ▲ | rao-v an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly the games issue might be out of day. Game devs have access to great services to punch through NAT at this point. Tech finds a way… | | |
| ▲ | reincarnate0x14 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | So we acknowledge v4 and CG-NAT are a problem but don't want to use the already available solution because game developers took it upon themselves to DEFEAT NAT :) That just reminded me of a peer protocol I worked on a long time ago that used other hosts to try to figure out which hosts were getting translated. Kind of like a reverse TOR. If that was detected, the better peering hosts would send them each other's local and public addresses so they could start sending UDP packets to each other, because the NAT devices wouldn't expect the TCP handshake first and so while the first few rounds didn't make it through, it caused the NAT device(s) to create the table entries for itself. Was it Hamachi that was the old IPX-over-IP tunneling? I'm fairly sure it used similar tricks. IPX-over-IP is also done on DOSBOX, which incidentally made it possible to play Master of Orion 2 with friends in other continents. | |
| ▲ | coryrc an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which has led to every game needing a central server running, forcing centralization where p2p used to work great. Also how Skype was able to scale on a budget, something now blocked, forcing you to raise money for more ideas than before. Running a matrix(?) node should be as simple as clicking install and it's just there, next time you're with your friends, nfc tap or whatever and your servers talk to each other directly forever going forward. But nope, there always is a gatekeeper now and they need money and that poisons everything. |
|
| |
| ▲ | NewJazz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | IPv4 addresses are still expensive. NAT is a value add for a lot of cloud platforms. IPv6 has arguably done more to counteract market forces related to IPv4 address exhaustion. | | |
| ▲ | coredog64 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's my dream that one day I'll be able to run an AWS VPC that only has IPv6 for the private subnets and then I'll never have to worry about managing the address space or how many IP addresses each ALB consumes. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jpdb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That particular benefit has no value if you still need to support v4. It's almost a self-inflicted tragedy of the commons or reverse network-effect. Adopting IPv6 doesn't alleviate the pain of IPv4 exhaustion if you still need to support dual-stack. |
| |
| ▲ | craftkiller an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It still helps. I have a 1U in a colo which gives me a /64 for ipv6 and ~5 addresses for ipv4. I just set up a dual stack kubernetes cluster on 6 virtual machines. When I want to ssh into one of the machines, my options are either: 1. Use IPv6 which works and goes directly to the virtual machine because each virtual machine grabs its own address from one of my 18446744073709551616 addresses.
2. Use IPv4 and either have to do a jumphost or do port forwarding, giving each virtual machine its own port which forwards to port 22 on the virtual machine.
3. Use a VPN.
I have all 3 working, but #1 was significantly less setup and works the best.Also being able to generate unique ULA subnets is super nice. | |
| ▲ | est31 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you are an ISP running dual stack ipv4 with NAT plus ipv6, the more connections happen via ipv6 and the more traffic happens via ipv6, the better, because it doesn't have to go through the NAT infrastructure which is more expensive, and cost scales with traffic (each packet needs its header to be modified) and number of parallel open connections (each public v4 address gives you only 65k port numbers, plus this mapping needs to be stored in RAM and databases). |
|
|
| ▲ | cortesoft 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That is a collective problem, though, not an individual one. I have always been able to get enough v4 addresses for all my needs. |
| |
| ▲ | adolph 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yep, iot would be a tremendously worse security problem if everyone wasn't actually operating a household subnet without knowing it. When your washing machine, fridge, etc all come with ipv6 5g modems is when your house becomes part of the future IT battlescape between lots of different entities that do not wish you well. |
|
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There’s zero benefit to you because the carrier is NATing you for other purposes. They get better network management. |
