4 ms·

I look forward to the day everyone can have IPV6. For now many of us still have to deal with NAT sadly - especially if we're open sourcing our software for user

I look forward to the day everyone can have IPV6. For now many of us still have to deal with NAT sadly - especially if we're open sourcing our software for users to deploy on any network.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Everyone can have IPv6 today by using a tunnelbroker. I used the free tunnel from https://www.he.net/ https://www.he.net/ in the past, when I didn't have native v6. Today I don't need it anymore.
- d1plo1d 6y ago
  Wow, am I getting this right? It handles NAT traversal for you behind the IPV6 address for free??
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    What do you mean by that exactly? Initially it's just an outgoing tunnel to one of their many exits, to reach any site which is reachable via v6. How you integrate that into your setup is up to you. Since they are (one of?) the pioneers you have many scripts available on many platforms which support that. When you mean incoming tunnel, it's no different from the many dynamic DNS solutions, where it's again up to you to integrate that. But even for this they have something: https://dns.he.net/ https://dns.he.net/
    - d1plo1d 6y ago
      Yeah, dynamic DNS but for an IPV6 address was what I was meaning. Very interesting.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
        Have fun. It's cool to have. If only to get acquainted with that v6y stuff.
- anderspitman 6y ago
  There's a comment above that indicates tunnel brokering can't handle NAT situations (at least CGNAT). RFC3053[0] seems to indicate this can be a problem as well: > 3. Known limitations This mechanism may not work if the user is using private IPv4 addresses behind a NAT box. Are you saying it works even behind a NAT? EDIT: According to HE's own FAQ[1]: > If you are using a NAT (Network Address Translation) appliance, please make sure it allows and forwards IP protocol 41. That doesn't sound like something most ISPs are likely to support. Not sure about home routers but if it has to be configured manually we're back to square one. [0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3053 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3053 [1]: https://ipv6.he.net/certification/faq.php https://ipv6.he.net/certification/faq.php
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    I don't know exactly anymore, because I'm now with a different ISP which natively supports v6. So can't reproduce. I mean I (probably) could, but don't want to, because now I have IPv4 via CGNAT, but not with a private IP, a public dynamic one probably shared with who knows how many others. But I can use IPSEC/OpenVPN/Wireguard to somewhere else with that. Though my CPE supports GRE. Anyways, there are large implementation differences in CGNAT from ISP to ISP and even different access technologies within the same.

I look forward to the day everyone can have IPV6. For now many of us still have to deal with NAT sadly - especially if we're open sourcing our software for users to deploy on any network.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Everyone can have IPv6 today by using a tunnelbroker. I used the free tunnel from https://www.he.net/ https://www.he.net/ in the past, when I didn't have native v6. Today I don't need it anymore.

d1plo1d 6y ago
Wow, am I getting this right? It handles NAT traversal for you behind the IPV6 address for free??
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  What do you mean by that exactly? Initially it's just an outgoing tunnel to one of their many exits, to reach any site which is reachable via v6. How you integrate that into your setup is up to you. Since they are (one of?) the pioneers you have many scripts available on many platforms which support that. When you mean incoming tunnel, it's no different from the many dynamic DNS solutions, where it's again up to you to integrate that. But even for this they have something: https://dns.he.net/ https://dns.he.net/
  - d1plo1d 6y ago
    Yeah, dynamic DNS but for an IPV6 address was what I was meaning. Very interesting.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      Have fun. It's cool to have. If only to get acquainted with that v6y stuff.
anderspitman 6y ago
There's a comment above that indicates tunnel brokering can't handle NAT situations (at least CGNAT). RFC3053[0] seems to indicate this can be a problem as well: > 3. Known limitations This mechanism may not work if the user is using private IPv4 addresses behind a NAT box. Are you saying it works even behind a NAT? EDIT: According to HE's own FAQ[1]: > If you are using a NAT (Network Address Translation) appliance, please make sure it allows and forwards IP protocol 41. That doesn't sound like something most ISPs are likely to support. Not sure about home routers but if it has to be configured manually we're back to square one. [0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3053 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3053 [1]: https://ipv6.he.net/certification/faq.php https://ipv6.he.net/certification/faq.php
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  I don't know exactly anymore, because I'm now with a different ISP which natively supports v6. So can't reproduce. I mean I (probably) could, but don't want to, because now I have IPv4 via CGNAT, but not with a private IP, a public dynamic one probably shared with who knows how many others. But I can use IPSEC/OpenVPN/Wireguard to somewhere else with that. Though my CPE supports GRE. Anyways, there are large implementation differences in CGNAT from ISP to ISP and even different access technologies within the same.