4 ms·
It is weird to call this 'IPv6 Only'. Connectivity to the IPv4 internet is still provided. It is just that to talk IPv4 you have to go through a couple of compl
by phicoh 8y ago
It is weird to call this 'IPv6 Only'. Connectivity to the IPv4 internet is still provided. It is just that to talk IPv4 you have to go through a couple of complex translation steps.
- okket 8y agoIt is IPv6 only with a fallback connection to the legacy IPv4 protocol with little to no chance of a reverse connection. Sadly, too much content is still stuck in this rapidly ageing world. Bandaid after bandaid won't help in the long term. Do we really want a one way connection world? If not, adapt IPv6. By default IPv6 CPE gear blocks incoming connections, which is good. Firewall rules can be changed, if needed. You can't change forced CG-NAT.
- Eech0Shu 8y agoThere's some RFC suggesting that CGNATs handle PCP requests from the CPE thus allowing incoming connections. But sadly that's not implemented everywhere.
- pixl97 8y agoYo dawg, I hear you like NAT, so I'm going to put NAT in your NAT. While IPv6 may suck, it really is time to take IPv4 out and shoot it in the head.
- ataturk 8y agoI started learning about IPv6 in 1994! I mean, it was the fast-coming new thing back then. I was encouraged by one professor to deep dive into it since my career would definitely require knowledge of this new protocol. It's been 24 years now, maybe after 25 years it will take off for real.
- repolfx 8y agoWell, are there any mobile ISPs that let you accept inbound connections? Carrier firewalls kill mobile p2p networks even though mobile+p2p are made for each other: it'd be amazing to be able to build decentralised services running on swarms of phones, but the lack of stable device-to-device connectivity except via massive Google and Apple datacenters is a killer problem :(