3 ms·
> Having globally allocated address space doesn’t actually imply openness of connectability Of course not, that's not my point. My point is that because of the
by ninkendo 2y ago
> Having globally allocated address space doesn’t actually imply openness of connectability
Of course not, that's not my point. My point is that because of the fact that your home router still firewalls with both IPv6 and IPv4, any software which relies on being able to "just" connect to a peer over the internet, is doomed. Our networks don't work that way any more (they probably did in the early 90's though.)
My point is that even if we had global routability, we still wouldn't have open connectability, because open connectability is a stupid idea. Which means any software ideas people might have that rely on connectability, are already a non-starter. So why do we need open routability in the first place? (Honest question. This is the crux of the issue. Yes, open routability means you can have a host listen on the open internet, but fewer than 1% of people know how to configure their home firewalls to do this, so it's effectively not possible to rely on this being something your users can do.)
- LegionMammal978 2y agoYeah, I've had to make this point several times. Getting rid of the NAT doesn't rid you of the need for NAT hole-punching and whatnot, since any sort of firewall will need a hole-punching scheme to allow incoming connections. I'd say the biggest practical objection (not just "NAT is ugly" or "DHCP is ugly" or "NAT is evil since it delayed IPv6") is CGNAT, which really does put a lot of restrictions on end-users that they can't circumvent. The more active hosts stuffed behind a single NAT, the more they have to compete for connections. > but fewer than 1% of people know how to configure their home firewalls to do this, so it's effectively not possible to rely on this being something your users can do. And a chunk of that 1% are on WANs that they aren't authorized to configure even if they wanted to.
- throw0101c 2y ago> My point is that because of the fact that your home router still firewalls with both IPv6 and IPv4, any software which relies on being able to "just" connect to a peer over the internet, is doomed. With IPv6 the only thing you need is PCP (or equivalent). With IPv4 you need PCP/whatever plus a whole bunch of STUN/TURN/ICE infrastructure. Just hole punching is a lot easier to support than more-than-just hole punching.
- saurik 2y agoIf you have PCP (NAT-PMP or whatever), why would you need STUN or TURN? (You still might like ICE, but ICE also makes sense to have on IPV6.)