3 ms·

> * "OMG Every device needs a publicly addressable IP!!!" > ok, but why? So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with

> * "OMG Every device needs a publicly addressable IP!!!" > ok, but why? So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). > Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network? I don't know why this misconception is so wide spread: globally addressable ≠ globally reachable. Firewalls still exist with IPv6. Before I recently changed ISPs, I was with one which gave out IPv6, and so all devices had an address (including things like my printer). But I couldn't initiate connections from the outside in—only replies to internally-initiated messages were let in by my Asus. Even if things were wide open—which they were not—good luck scanning a /64.

exabrial 3y ago
> So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). Do you really think Roomba is going to let you run your Robot Vacuum without contacting, er permission, from their data center in Virginia?
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  How is this at all related to global addressability?
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    It's not. OP has no idea what he's talking about.
- hristov 3y ago
  Currently my roomba is behind a nat and still insists on contacting their main data centers. And if i turn off the internet to my nat the roomba will run but none of the advanced cell phone related features of the roomba will work, even though my cell phone is connected to the same wifi network in the same nat as the roomba. So this is completely unrelated. IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies.
  - worewood 3y ago
    > IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies. That's exactly the point; they market it as if it would make a plethora of new and innovative things happen but in reality they will allow none of it. So, it's pointless to rush adoption.
    - hristov 3y ago
      Removing a cost and an artificial shortage may cause many innovative things to happen. History is full of examples when lower costs and higher availability of something have caused a burst of innovation. What I meant in the grandparent comment is that if a company makes it their business strategy to have all devices call home, they will do that regardless if they use ipv4 or ipv6. But if ipv6 is widely implemented and there is no cost to ip addresses, it is entirely possible that another company can create an ap that allows you to directly communicate to your devices without using a central server.
    - throw0101c 3y ago
      > That's exactly the point; they market it as if it would make a plethora of new and innovative things happen but in reality they will allow none of it. How much innovation and applications have been stymied by artificial network-layer barriers: > First is actually a more subtle issue... the Skype peer-to-peer network architecture elected certain nodes to be "supernodes", to help maintain the index of peers as well as handle parts of the NAT/firewall traversal for other peers. * https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T9f6a724f4bcd6616-M0e99abae40a46d044d1f39da https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T9f6a724f4bcd6616-M0e99aba... * https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/skype... CPE gear has gotten better hole punching over time (PCP, UPnP), but one still has to futz around with STUN/ICE/TURN. We've invented entirely new protocols (QUIC) because of middleware boxes blocking things (SCTP, DCCP) and generally getting in the way.
hot_gril 3y ago
> globally addressable ≠ globally reachable Ideally yes, but IRL they are related concepts. Things will get misconfigured, often by default.
amluto 3y ago
> > ok, but why? > So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). There’s (IMO) a much better reason: so your endpoints can have globally unique addresses. If I have a service in Google Cloud and a service in AWS and an on-prem service and a customer service and ten different upstream services from ten different hosted providers, I want these services to have different addresses, TYVM. And I want to configure my networking to them without needing to worry about whether all parties actually agree on the addressing scheme. This is far more important than actually making anything globally routable. If my AWS thingy is 192.168.3.7, I don’t need whatever random third party service I’m using to be able to route to 192.168.3.7 (and I’d probably prefer that it not be able to route there). But I don’t want to worry about the service provider using 192.168.3.7 for another purpose. I’d also like traceroute to work without having a bunch of intermediate hops where the addresses simply cannot be mapped to their owners without extra side knowledge of the network topology.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > There’s (IMO) a much better reason: so your endpoints can have globally unique addresses. Complications with address space collisions (esp. M&A) was one of the reasons given in this Wells Fargo presentation from 2014: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4

exabrial 3y ago

> So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). Do you really think Roomba is going to let you run your Robot Vacuum without contacting, er permission, from their data center in Virginia?

uxp8u61q 3y ago
How is this at all related to global addressability?
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  It's not. OP has no idea what he's talking about.
hristov 3y ago
Currently my roomba is behind a nat and still insists on contacting their main data centers. And if i turn off the internet to my nat the roomba will run but none of the advanced cell phone related features of the roomba will work, even though my cell phone is connected to the same wifi network in the same nat as the roomba. So this is completely unrelated. IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies.
- worewood 3y ago
  > IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies. That's exactly the point; they market it as if it would make a plethora of new and innovative things happen but in reality they will allow none of it. So, it's pointless to rush adoption.
  - hristov 3y ago
    Removing a cost and an artificial shortage may cause many innovative things to happen. History is full of examples when lower costs and higher availability of something have caused a burst of innovation. What I meant in the grandparent comment is that if a company makes it their business strategy to have all devices call home, they will do that regardless if they use ipv4 or ipv6. But if ipv6 is widely implemented and there is no cost to ip addresses, it is entirely possible that another company can create an ap that allows you to directly communicate to your devices without using a central server.
  - throw0101c 3y ago
    > That's exactly the point; they market it as if it would make a plethora of new and innovative things happen but in reality they will allow none of it. How much innovation and applications have been stymied by artificial network-layer barriers: > First is actually a more subtle issue... the Skype peer-to-peer network architecture elected certain nodes to be "supernodes", to help maintain the index of peers as well as handle parts of the NAT/firewall traversal for other peers. * https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T9f6a724f4bcd6616-M0e99abae40a46d044d1f39da https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T9f6a724f4bcd6616-M0e99aba... * https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/skype... CPE gear has gotten better hole punching over time (PCP, UPnP), but one still has to futz around with STUN/ICE/TURN. We've invented entirely new protocols (QUIC) because of middleware boxes blocking things (SCTP, DCCP) and generally getting in the way.

hot_gril 3y ago

> globally addressable ≠ globally reachable Ideally yes, but IRL they are related concepts. Things will get misconfigured, often by default.

amluto 3y ago

> > ok, but why? > So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). There’s (IMO) a much better reason: so your endpoints can have globally unique addresses. If I have a service in Google Cloud and a service in AWS and an on-prem service and a customer service and ten different upstream services from ten different hosted providers, I want these services to have different addresses, TYVM. And I want to configure my networking to them without needing to worry about whether all parties actually agree on the addressing scheme. This is far more important than actually making anything globally routable. If my AWS thingy is 192.168.3.7, I don’t need whatever random third party service I’m using to be able to route to 192.168.3.7 (and I’d probably prefer that it not be able to route there). But I don’t want to worry about the service provider using 192.168.3.7 for another purpose. I’d also like traceroute to work without having a bunch of intermediate hops where the addresses simply cannot be mapped to their owners without extra side knowledge of the network topology.

throw0101b 3y ago
> There’s (IMO) a much better reason: so your endpoints can have globally unique addresses. Complications with address space collisions (esp. M&A) was one of the reasons given in this Wells Fargo presentation from 2014: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4