4 ms·

IPv6 have many defects BUT allow a lost thing we desperately need NO DAMN needed NAT. Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service a

by kkfx 4y ago

IPv6 have many defects BUT allow a lost thing we desperately need NO DAMN needed NAT. Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service at home, with a static IPv6 global address and a domain name bound to it. IMVHO many giants obstacle IPv6 NOT because it's hard and not so nice BUT because they fear loosing their privileged position. Oh, sure most people do not have TODAY a homeserver but how much would it take to see pre-packaged pseudo-FLOSS homeservers like we see for android "pirate-TV minicomputers"? Try weighting that before judge.

nly 4y ago
ISPs don't want this. They want to upsell you to a business service if you want a static IP. They'll just use dynamic IP allocation aka DHCP to make the whole thing really inconvenient.
- philjohn 4y ago
  *some ISP's don't want this. I'm on Zen in the UK and have both a static IPv4 (with additional IP's available for a relatively lot fee in blocks of 8 or more) and a /48 IPv6 block.
  - mnd999 4y ago
    Same with A&A, although they are a bit more expensive than the likes of Sky / Virgin / BT it’s definitely worth it.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    So what? Almost for a decade, I used to have 15 IPv4 addresses with OVH _for free_, and this very December they decided to start charging for them. Before OVH, I also was with another similarly-cheapo ISP that gave me one IPv4 for free until they decided to start charging for it (and I left). It's just a matter of time. Of course if your ISP is expensive enough they'll just keep eating the cost for more years, but .. what's the point? One IPv4 is not that costly yet that is worth an expensive ISP over it...
- kkfx 4y ago
  For sure, but while they do not want I DO WANT. With IPv4 they have a valid excuse: we do not have enough address, with IPv6 they have no valid excuse.
sidewndr46 4y ago
As others have commented, ISPs explicitly do not want this happening. One of the service tiers at my house was previously advertised as 900/35. 900 Mbps down, 35 mbps up. Now, there are no ISPs that rate the upload speed at all. At least one of the ISPs at my house has language in the contract that limits usage to that initiated by a live operator, so any sort of hosting is obviously prohibited. Another ISP solved this by delegating several /64 addresses, but only actually routing traffic for a single IPv6 address.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Here (France) I got 2Gbps down, 860Mbps up (and I'm on mountains, not downtown) so definitively asymmetric but still with a very good upload for home usages, for instance for simple p2p file sharing while on an ip2ip VoIP call with a friend, no special services in between. All we need is IMVHO a general culture on IT and it's evolution, to push politicians MANDATE no throttling, routing tricks etc with public watchdogs that sanction all anti-users behaviors in tech, not just for ISP but for instance in terms of communications service: you are a company and decide to offer a new "modern chat" service with a new protocol? Ok, no issues. Do it if you want BUT if the protocol is closed source or design in a way to makes third party "peering" hard you get significant income slice ALL THE TIME this design persist. Let's say you state "ah but file-sharing pass on our servers and bandwidth and storage are costly. That's good. So allow third party "caching services" or direct IP2IP sharing or pay the sanction for having chosen an anti-user design. Since all this "features" and "anti vs pro" can't be written in laws up front that's the simple way to go: from the PUBLIC academia a watchdog who listen FLOSS associations, citizens, users in general and keep watching not impeding, but sanctioning. Enough to allow free ALSO commercial innovation, but not enough to makes some behaviors interesting for any business.
Kadin 4y ago
The utility of home servers and server-like devices is limited by upstream bandwidth on asymmetric connections (virtually all home broadband except some fiber-based services). Not IP addressing. Dynamic DNS has been around for decades and provides a solution if you really want to run a home server behind NAT. If someone wanted to market a home server box, they would just need to implement something like DDNS... and Plex basically does just that. But most people have limited upstream bandwidth, such that it's impractical to serve much content from home, except maybe to yourself as a 'road warrior' via VPN, or video streams via Plex, stuff like that. If home broadband was symmetric, even with NAT, we would see many more applications taking advantage of that upstream bandwidth.
bpye 4y ago
> Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service at home, with a static IPv6 global address and a domain name bound to it. Nice in theory, but some ISPs (mine included) will happily give you a /56 via prefix delegation, but if your connection drops, you will possibly get a different prefix, and so your IP unfortunately changes.

by kkfx 4y ago

nly 4y ago

ISPs don't want this. They want to upsell you to a business service if you want a static IP. They'll just use dynamic IP allocation aka DHCP to make the whole thing really inconvenient.

philjohn 4y ago
*some ISP's don't want this. I'm on Zen in the UK and have both a static IPv4 (with additional IP's available for a relatively lot fee in blocks of 8 or more) and a /48 IPv6 block.
- mnd999 4y ago
  Same with A&A, although they are a bit more expensive than the likes of Sky / Virgin / BT it’s definitely worth it.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  So what? Almost for a decade, I used to have 15 IPv4 addresses with OVH _for free_, and this very December they decided to start charging for them. Before OVH, I also was with another similarly-cheapo ISP that gave me one IPv4 for free until they decided to start charging for it (and I left). It's just a matter of time. Of course if your ISP is expensive enough they'll just keep eating the cost for more years, but .. what's the point? One IPv4 is not that costly yet that is worth an expensive ISP over it...
kkfx 4y ago
For sure, but while they do not want I DO WANT. With IPv4 they have a valid excuse: we do not have enough address, with IPv6 they have no valid excuse.

sidewndr46 4y ago

As others have commented, ISPs explicitly do not want this happening. One of the service tiers at my house was previously advertised as 900/35. 900 Mbps down, 35 mbps up. Now, there are no ISPs that rate the upload speed at all. At least one of the ISPs at my house has language in the contract that limits usage to that initiated by a live operator, so any sort of hosting is obviously prohibited. Another ISP solved this by delegating several /64 addresses, but only actually routing traffic for a single IPv6 address.

kkfx 4y ago
Here (France) I got 2Gbps down, 860Mbps up (and I'm on mountains, not downtown) so definitively asymmetric but still with a very good upload for home usages, for instance for simple p2p file sharing while on an ip2ip VoIP call with a friend, no special services in between. All we need is IMVHO a general culture on IT and it's evolution, to push politicians MANDATE no throttling, routing tricks etc with public watchdogs that sanction all anti-users behaviors in tech, not just for ISP but for instance in terms of communications service: you are a company and decide to offer a new "modern chat" service with a new protocol? Ok, no issues. Do it if you want BUT if the protocol is closed source or design in a way to makes third party "peering" hard you get significant income slice ALL THE TIME this design persist. Let's say you state "ah but file-sharing pass on our servers and bandwidth and storage are costly. That's good. So allow third party "caching services" or direct IP2IP sharing or pay the sanction for having chosen an anti-user design. Since all this "features" and "anti vs pro" can't be written in laws up front that's the simple way to go: from the PUBLIC academia a watchdog who listen FLOSS associations, citizens, users in general and keep watching not impeding, but sanctioning. Enough to allow free ALSO commercial innovation, but not enough to makes some behaviors interesting for any business.

Kadin 4y ago

The utility of home servers and server-like devices is limited by upstream bandwidth on asymmetric connections (virtually all home broadband except some fiber-based services). Not IP addressing. Dynamic DNS has been around for decades and provides a solution if you really want to run a home server behind NAT. If someone wanted to market a home server box, they would just need to implement something like DDNS... and Plex basically does just that. But most people have limited upstream bandwidth, such that it's impractical to serve much content from home, except maybe to yourself as a 'road warrior' via VPN, or video streams via Plex, stuff like that. If home broadband was symmetric, even with NAT, we would see many more applications taking advantage of that upstream bandwidth.

bpye 4y ago

> Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service at home, with a static IPv6 global address and a domain name bound to it. Nice in theory, but some ISPs (mine included) will happily give you a /56 via prefix delegation, but if your connection drops, you will possibly get a different prefix, and so your IP unfortunately changes.