4 ms·

Neither Starlink nor wireless telco mobile services are home internet. They are home web+. If an ISP does not give you an ipv4 address it is not an ISP. It's a

Neither Starlink nor wireless telco mobile services are home internet. They are home web+. If an ISP does not give you an ipv4 address it is not an ISP. It's a web service provider (WSP).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
freeone3000 6y ago
What protocols are you thinking of that don't work over ipv6? Everything from ftp to gopher to ssh works fine. Every IPv4 address created has been assigned. There have been at least two rounds of clawbacks. The current mode of operation is to buy blocks from Ethiopia, since they're IPv6-first. There's really no need for a new internet connection to be assigned an IPv4 address.
- superkuh 6y ago
  Participating in peer to peer networks and hosting from home to start. Pretty much anything that involves talking directly to other humans instead of having to go through a corporation requires having an internet routable address and ports. It'd be great if ipv6 were adopted, but it isn't. Only having an ipv6 address effectively cuts you off from 99% of the internet. All that's left is big corporate websites.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    IPv6 is internet-routable. You seem to be objecting to a different thing than the IP version used. Maybe the use of CGNAT, or the non-persistent assignment of IPv6 addresses? (The first is a IPv4 thing, the second also a thing under IPv4.) DynDNS is a very workable solution to counteract non-static assignment of addresses. EDIT in reply to EDIT: Gee, if only there were some wide-scale home internet use adoption giving everyone an IPv6 address in order to ensure it's supported.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    It's prudent to assume that every ISP surveils your naive traffic, so native IPv4 service isn't good for much anyway. A VPN (whether consumer or self-hosted VPS) will add a mere $5/mo to the cost. Providing the physical layer is what's important.
zamadatix 6y ago
The inability to dial in without first performing some form of NAT traversal to escape CGNAT is an interesting take on what being on the internet means (especially since >99% of users need to do this with normal NAT even when they have a public IP anyways) but even if you accept this "WSP" is still being pulled out of thin air as there isn't anything special about accessing the web vs any other thing on the internet. Either way v6 is definitely as much the internet as v4 and NAT64 is not really worse (though different) than NAT44 when it comes to accessing that half of things.

Neither Starlink nor wireless telco mobile services are home internet. They are home web+. If an ISP does not give you an ipv4 address it is not an ISP. It's a web service provider (WSP).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

freeone3000 6y ago

What protocols are you thinking of that don't work over ipv6? Everything from ftp to gopher to ssh works fine. Every IPv4 address created has been assigned. There have been at least two rounds of clawbacks. The current mode of operation is to buy blocks from Ethiopia, since they're IPv6-first. There's really no need for a new internet connection to be assigned an IPv4 address.

superkuh 6y ago
Participating in peer to peer networks and hosting from home to start. Pretty much anything that involves talking directly to other humans instead of having to go through a corporation requires having an internet routable address and ports. It'd be great if ipv6 were adopted, but it isn't. Only having an ipv6 address effectively cuts you off from 99% of the internet. All that's left is big corporate websites.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  IPv6 is internet-routable. You seem to be objecting to a different thing than the IP version used. Maybe the use of CGNAT, or the non-persistent assignment of IPv6 addresses? (The first is a IPv4 thing, the second also a thing under IPv4.) DynDNS is a very workable solution to counteract non-static assignment of addresses. EDIT in reply to EDIT: Gee, if only there were some wide-scale home internet use adoption giving everyone an IPv6 address in order to ensure it's supported.
- mindslight 6y ago
  It's prudent to assume that every ISP surveils your naive traffic, so native IPv4 service isn't good for much anyway. A VPN (whether consumer or self-hosted VPS) will add a mere $5/mo to the cost. Providing the physical layer is what's important.

zamadatix 6y ago

The inability to dial in without first performing some form of NAT traversal to escape CGNAT is an interesting take on what being on the internet means (especially since >99% of users need to do this with normal NAT even when they have a public IP anyways) but even if you accept this "WSP" is still being pulled out of thin air as there isn't anything special about accessing the web vs any other thing on the internet. Either way v6 is definitely as much the internet as v4 and NAT64 is not really worse (though different) than NAT44 when it comes to accessing that half of things.