3 ms·

Again with the not reading. Let me try to sum up my position so we can end this whole “nuh uh!” nonsense. IPv6 was designed in a world where we thought we’d ha

Again with the not reading. Let me try to sum up my position so we can end this whole “nuh uh!” nonsense. IPv6 was designed in a world where we thought we’d have a truly peer-to-peer internet where anyone could just talk to someone else’s device. This obviously isn’t what happened. An ipv6 proponent may say “this is because NAT breaks the necessary assumptions”, but that’s extremely oversimplified and wrong. The reason that, when I use my iPhone to FaceTime my mom’s iPhone, it doesn’t just use SIP to contact her phone, isn’t because IPv4 and NAT. It’s because the very idea of that is nearly impossible to implement at scale even if everyone had a unique address. I’m aware you can’t have multiple devices behind a NAT address listen on the same port. Thank you for pointing that out, you’re very smart. But it really doesn’t address my point at all, does it? My point being that the reason we don’t use SIP and related technologies for billions of end user devices today, isn’t because of NAT. It’s because the myriad of other problems that would need to be solved for it to work reliably, and because of NAT. Eliminating NAT wouldn’t really meaningfully change the landscape of how software works. FaceTime calls would still go through Apple servers. People would still use centralized services run in real data centers, etc.

vel0city 2y ago
> I’m aware you can’t have multiple devices behind a NAT address listen on the same port. Thank you for pointing that out, you’re very smart. Ah, finally, you do acknowledge that there are issues that aren't actually solved with IPv4 and NAT. Thanks. > But it really doesn’t address my point at all, does it? Lets go back to the first thing I was reponding to. > it still wouldn’t let you design something like a VoIP phone (or a pure peer-to-peer version of FaceTime) that just listened for connections and let other people “call” you by connecting to your device. With having a public IP address, PMP enabled on my router, and DNS registration I have this today. My SIP phone here is sitting by, waiting for incoming calls. I don't need Apple's servers for this. Anyone with a SIP client and who knows the name can get to it (or trawls IPv6 space). This becomes a headache with IPv4 with multiple devices all wanting that 5061 port. Sure, one could just also tell people the port and have lots of random ports assigned, but that's just yet another bit of information to get lost, one more mapping to maintain, etc. Imagine if Amazon ran their ecommerce site off a random high number port instead of :443, think they'd get as much traffic?
- ninkendo 2y ago
  > With having a public IP address, PMP enabled on my router, and DNS registration I have this today. That’s cool for you, congratulations. I’m talking about the broader internet at large, and the billions of users on it, and the software that is written for these billions of users. This software does not behave the way your cool phone does. Because people’s IP’s change. They’re behind firewalls they are unable or don’t understand how to configure. We don’t write software this way for a lot of good reasons. Now, I keep talking about this, then you bring up “but I have this use case, what about that?” Demanding an answer as if I give a shit that you want to run a SIP phone at your house, and you’re willing to configure your firewall, etc. My whole point (!!!) is that what you’re doing is not what the billions of people using the internet are doing. When I bought my mom an iPhone, I didn’t have to tell her “ok so, FaceTime only works at your house, you have to reconfigure this DDNS service when your IP changes, you have to configure your router this way, and don’t ever leave the WiFi network or it won’t work, but thank god for ipv6, because it means dad can do all this too for his phone!” No. Because FaceTime doesn’t work that way, nor could it ever, because doing true peer to peer calling was never a thing that would have ever worked at scale. It’s not being held back by NAT. It’s being held back because it was never gonna work in the first place.*
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > and you’re willing to configure your firewall I didn't have to configure the firewall, that happened automatically with PMP. That thing you didn't even know existed until a few hours ago. But somehow you know all that is and is not possible. All that could have been if things were different.
    - ninkendo 2y ago
      Sick burn bro I mean if you’re just going to sling ad-hominems around and invent your own argument so you have a chance at winning it, sure. I’m not aware of the specific RFC’s du jour that are used for auto-configuring routers. But after spending some time looking it up, it seems relatively niche (not as widespread as UPnP), and it appears the last 3 routers I’ve owned don’t support it. (I run an openbsd box with pf currently, but my unifi gateway before that didn’t support it, and the shitbox gateway Comcast gave me before that certainly didn’t support it. I could run a service on my openbsd box to support it but it wouldn’t make a difference because I’m perfectly capable of editing my pf.conf as it is.) But if you’re gonna dig up other posts of mine to try and get a dig in at me, maybe at least read the rest of the post? You certainly haven’t done a good job of that so far. Because I indicated that of course a protocol like this ought to exist, but what percentage of users of the broader internet are actually running a router that supports this? If you wanted to come out with a video calling app that only worked if your users had PMP working, what market share would you be losing out on? That’s the topic of discussion here after all (not that that’ll stop you from inventing your own discussion as you’ve continued to do.)

vel0city 2y ago

> I’m aware you can’t have multiple devices behind a NAT address listen on the same port. Thank you for pointing that out, you’re very smart. Ah, finally, you do acknowledge that there are issues that aren't actually solved with IPv4 and NAT. Thanks. > But it really doesn’t address my point at all, does it? Lets go back to the first thing I was reponding to. > it still wouldn’t let you design something like a VoIP phone (or a pure peer-to-peer version of FaceTime) that just listened for connections and let other people “call” you by connecting to your device. With having a public IP address, PMP enabled on my router, and DNS registration I have this today. My SIP phone here is sitting by, waiting for incoming calls. I don't need Apple's servers for this. Anyone with a SIP client and who knows the name can get to it (or trawls IPv6 space). This becomes a headache with IPv4 with multiple devices all wanting that 5061 port. Sure, one could just also tell people the port and have lots of random ports assigned, but that's just yet another bit of information to get lost, one more mapping to maintain, etc. Imagine if Amazon ran their ecommerce site off a random high number port instead of :443, think they'd get as much traffic?

ninkendo 2y ago
> With having a public IP address, PMP enabled on my router, and DNS registration I have this today. That’s cool for you, congratulations. I’m talking about the broader internet at large, and the billions of users on it, and the software that is written for these billions of users. This software does not behave the way your cool phone does. Because people’s IP’s change. They’re behind firewalls they are unable or don’t understand how to configure. We don’t write software this way for a lot of good reasons. Now, I keep talking about this, then you bring up “but I have this use case, what about that?” Demanding an answer as if I give a shit that you want to run a SIP phone at your house, and you’re willing to configure your firewall, etc. My whole point (!!!) is that what you’re doing is not what the billions of people using the internet are doing. When I bought my mom an iPhone, I didn’t have to tell her “ok so, FaceTime only works at your house, you have to reconfigure this DDNS service when your IP changes, you have to configure your router this way, and don’t ever leave the WiFi network or it won’t work, but thank god for ipv6, because it means dad can do all this too for his phone!” No. Because FaceTime doesn’t work that way, nor could it ever, because doing true peer to peer calling was never a thing that would have ever worked at scale. It’s not being held back by NAT. It’s being held back because it was never gonna work in the first place.*
- vel0city 2y ago
  > and you’re willing to configure your firewall I didn't have to configure the firewall, that happened automatically with PMP. That thing you didn't even know existed until a few hours ago. But somehow you know all that is and is not possible. All that could have been if things were different.
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    Sick burn bro I mean if you’re just going to sling ad-hominems around and invent your own argument so you have a chance at winning it, sure. I’m not aware of the specific RFC’s du jour that are used for auto-configuring routers. But after spending some time looking it up, it seems relatively niche (not as widespread as UPnP), and it appears the last 3 routers I’ve owned don’t support it. (I run an openbsd box with pf currently, but my unifi gateway before that didn’t support it, and the shitbox gateway Comcast gave me before that certainly didn’t support it. I could run a service on my openbsd box to support it but it wouldn’t make a difference because I’m perfectly capable of editing my pf.conf as it is.) But if you’re gonna dig up other posts of mine to try and get a dig in at me, maybe at least read the rest of the post? You certainly haven’t done a good job of that so far. Because I indicated that of course a protocol like this ought to exist, but what percentage of users of the broader internet are actually running a router that supports this? If you wanted to come out with a video calling app that only worked if your users had PMP working, what market share would you be losing out on? That’s the topic of discussion here after all (not that that’ll stop you from inventing your own discussion as you’ve continued to do.)