News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The world in which IPv6 was a good design. Parent comment

Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by nrabulinski on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:30AM (#37117788)
> End users can use NAT just fine. Servers can use […] reverse proxies, sharing single IPv4 address

So you want all computers to be behind at least a single layer of NAT. And you also want people to not only have to purchase a domain but also have to pay their NAT operator to add their domain to the reverse proxy

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by mike_d on Monday August 14, 2023 @02:29AM (#37118102)
Eyeball networks are vastly different from content networks. Even among the tinkerer "homelab" and HN crowds, it is rare to host content from the same connection/address you browse from.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by growse on Monday August 14, 2023 @02:55AM (#37118234)
You're confusing cause and effect.

They're very different precisely because of hacky nonsense like NAT.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by tsimionescu on Monday August 14, 2023 @06:40AM (#37119448)
How is (home) NAT making the problem more complex than a stateful firewall? You never want to have a policy where incoming connections/UDP streams are permitted by default to reach any random device on the network, regardless of whether that device has a routable IP or not.

Now, CGNAT is a different beast and more worrisome from that point of view.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by growse on Monday August 14, 2023 @09:06AM (#37120593)
How do you have two different devices running a webserver on two different IPs at home with NAT?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by kalleboo on Monday August 14, 2023 @09:11AM (#37120645)
In a decade or two, everyone is going to be behind CGNAT. There are not enough IPv4 addresses.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The world in which IPv6 was a good design by throw0101b on Monday August 14, 2023 @09:12AM (#37120654)
> How is (home) NAT making the problem more complex than a stateful firewall?

ICE/TURN/STUN: the address that your software sees on your laptop, desktop, home NAS is not the address that clients can connect to.

In both NAT and non-NAT you have to use UPnP/PCP to do hole punching, but with NAT you have to do a bunch of address-y stuff as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]