6 ms·
> It solves IP exhaustion, NAT, and IP privacy at the cost of an extra hop and no UDP. That is awfully expensive for something ipv6 already solves minus the pr
by tjoff 4y ago
> It solves IP exhaustion, NAT, and IP privacy at the cost of an extra hop and no UDP.
That is awfully expensive for something ipv6 already solves minus the privacy part. I don't see how it can be considered "huge". A slight convenience maybe?
Also, routing everything through a 3rd party is a massive downside.
- bradfitz 4y agoWe love IPv6 at Tailscale! It's just not pervasive yet, so we do what we gotta do.
- apitman 4y agoIPv6 the technology solves it, IPv6 as it exists in the real world does not. Even if we got 100% IPv6 adoption overnight, you would still not have a universally adopted API for punching holes through router firewalls for p2p applications.
- Spivak 4y agoYep, and such a thing would never be allowed anyway because what network administrator will look at “yes random client devices can punch holes in my network from the outside to your not very securely assigned address” and rightfully say nope. Here’s the attack: - You want to get to A - And you’re on a device B that has access to hole-punch-as-a-service but no direct access to A. Good network administrator / sysadmin! - Attack NDP (ie ARP spoofing but IPv6 flavored) to trick the firewall just for a moment that you’re A [1] and request the port be opened to your evil server C on the public internet. - Oops.
- anderspitman 4y agoYep, tunneling is way more secure than direct p2p. Especially if you run the service inside some sort of sandbox/container/VM which is possible on all major OSes these days.
- aidenn0 4y agoSSL?
- ikiris 4y ago... you mean like UPnP?
- anderspitman 4y agoThe first google result for "upnp adoption" is from 2012. The second is from 2022 and recommends you turn it off for security reasons. EDIT: I agree we definitely need something like UPnP, or maybe even UPnP itself, but it's another adoption problem currently.
- _carbyau_ 4y agoUPnP needs management. I'd like to be able to set rules about what ports can be opened by UPnP, from where, by whom, with or without a notification in email/logs/alerts etc.
- counttheforks 4y agoPretty much every consumer router has UPnP enabled by default.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bboygravity 4y agoHow does Syncthing solve this? AFAIK it doesn't use third party servers and it seems to get through any router just fine...
- melony 4y agohttps://forum.syncthing.net/t/enable-nat-traversal-what-does-it-do/13044 https://forum.syncthing.net/t/enable-nat-traversal-what-does...
- mkl 4y agoIt uses third party (community-provided) relay servers: https://docs.syncthing.net/users/strelaysrv.html https://docs.syncthing.net/users/strelaysrv.html This can have quite an effect on sync speed. I set it up for my dad and initially his PC and laptop were syncing incredibly slowly. It turned out they both thought his home network was a public one, so everything was going out to a relay server and back.
- preben 4y agoWebRTC solves this via signalling servers. Data channels are peer-to-peer and traverse NAT.
- anderspitman 4y agoAs others have mentioned, NAT traversal and relays. Tailscale has the best article on NAT traversal I'm aware of: https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works/ https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works/