6 ms·

Hetzner should provide free CGNAT IPv4 Addresses (IPv4 Gateway) for IPv6-Only VMs

by xlmnxp 4y ago

onli 4y ago
Just to specify the kind of "should": But they don't, do they? Same with vultr, their ipv6 boxes have no outgoing IPv4 connection route.
manfre 4y ago
Communal ipv4 is very problematic for certain services due to bad neighbors causing it to be blacklisted.
- detaro 4y ago
  Not for hosting services, but for things like accessing Github.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    That's GP's point. Service providers will block the IPs of abusive clients. If those clients are your cg-nat neighbours, you're blocked with them.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Try accessing the web through TOR and you see why public, shared IP addresses are quite a hassle in practice. Exit nodes don't host anything either, after all. Actually, that's not even that bad a way to get IPv4 on any IPv6-only host: route it all through TOR!
- noipv6 4y ago
  this sounds like a valid argument for deploying ipv6 wherever you can, tbqh cgnat is only going to get MORE common, globally
NelsonMinar 4y ago
A whole lot of ISPs are doing CGNAT for IPv4 now, mostly in Asia. Starlink does it. It's mostly OK but has a lot of drawbacks, particularly IP-based geolocation. (Starlink does not support IPv6 although they seem to be rolling it out this month.)
- heywire 4y ago
  My ISP (Metronet, Ohio, US) uses CGNAT. I’ve had their service for about 15 months now, and it has been pretty much uneventful. Maybe a handful of times I’ve gotten a captcha on something, but for the most part, it’s just fine. I also don’t see thousands of blocked connection attempts a day either, so there is a plus side. I just use Tailscale should I need to access anything at home while I’m away.
- mort96 4y ago
  Being behind CGNAT has downsides yes, for example being unable to ever host anything; you become relegated to a consumer who's dependent on the big hosting companies to ever have an Internet presence. But geolocation? I don't want everyone to be able to get my location! Breaking IP-based geolocation is a benefit of CGNAT, not a drawback.
  - NelsonMinar 4y ago
    It's a huge PITA though. I'm near Sacramento but my IP looks like it's in Los Angeles. It screws up a surprising number of things, particularly local TV streaming services. IP geolocation is a bad idea for lots of reasons. Unfortunately it's also a reality of how services work.
- noipv6 4y ago
  47.57% of observed requests coming out of as14593 is ipv6, as of two days ago: https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 & to be clear, that is CRAZY growth! edit: that's traffic to monitoring resources, not in general, sorry /facepalm
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Hetzner should provide free CGNAT IPv4 Addresses (IPv4 Gateway) for IPv6-Only VMs

by xlmnxp 4y ago

Hetzner should provide free CGNAT IPv4 Addresses (IPv4 Gateway) for IPv6-Only VMs

onli 4y ago

Just to specify the kind of "should": But they don't, do they? Same with vultr, their ipv6 boxes have no outgoing IPv4 connection route.

manfre 4y ago

Communal ipv4 is very problematic for certain services due to bad neighbors causing it to be blacklisted.

detaro 4y ago
Not for hosting services, but for things like accessing Github.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  That's GP's point. Service providers will block the IPs of abusive clients. If those clients are your cg-nat neighbours, you're blocked with them.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Try accessing the web through TOR and you see why public, shared IP addresses are quite a hassle in practice. Exit nodes don't host anything either, after all. Actually, that's not even that bad a way to get IPv4 on any IPv6-only host: route it all through TOR!
noipv6 4y ago
this sounds like a valid argument for deploying ipv6 wherever you can, tbqh cgnat is only going to get MORE common, globally

NelsonMinar 4y ago

A whole lot of ISPs are doing CGNAT for IPv4 now, mostly in Asia. Starlink does it. It's mostly OK but has a lot of drawbacks, particularly IP-based geolocation. (Starlink does not support IPv6 although they seem to be rolling it out this month.)

heywire 4y ago
My ISP (Metronet, Ohio, US) uses CGNAT. I’ve had their service for about 15 months now, and it has been pretty much uneventful. Maybe a handful of times I’ve gotten a captcha on something, but for the most part, it’s just fine. I also don’t see thousands of blocked connection attempts a day either, so there is a plus side. I just use Tailscale should I need to access anything at home while I’m away.
mort96 4y ago
Being behind CGNAT has downsides yes, for example being unable to ever host anything; you become relegated to a consumer who's dependent on the big hosting companies to ever have an Internet presence. But geolocation? I don't want everyone to be able to get my location! Breaking IP-based geolocation is a benefit of CGNAT, not a drawback.
- NelsonMinar 4y ago
  It's a huge PITA though. I'm near Sacramento but my IP looks like it's in Los Angeles. It screws up a surprising number of things, particularly local TV streaming services. IP geolocation is a bad idea for lots of reasons. Unfortunately it's also a reality of how services work.
noipv6 4y ago
47.57% of observed requests coming out of as14593 is ipv6, as of two days ago: https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 & to be clear, that is CRAZY growth! edit: that's traffic to monitoring resources, not in general, sorry /facepalm
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]