Re:AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical servic...
by exabrial on Friday November 10, 2023 @12:53PM
(#38222064)
Doesn't that present a privacy issue? One can _casually_ infer who you are talking to merely by examining network traffic.
Re:AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical servic...
by lxgr on Friday November 10, 2023 @12:57PM
(#38222129)
You're always free to use a relay for privacy reasons. Many common VoIP solutions allow just that.
IPv6 (or more generally, the absence of NAPT) just changes the switch label from "try [not] to use direct connections, unless NAT gets in the way" to "[always|never] use direct connections".
In other words, it cleanly separates the two distinct concerns of privacy and connection topology. I think that's a good thing.
Two peers, each behind a CG-NAT (or other symmetric NAT), depend on somebody running a relay in order to be able to communicate.
This makes it very expensive (and sometimes risky, since unrestricted relays can be used for all kinds of nefarious things too) to deploy any new VoIP service.
I'd call that "broken by NAT".
> everything works right now.
Yes, everything that works right now works right now, but that's a tautology, not proof of anything. The things that don't exist because they wouldn't work in a predominately NATted world don't work, because we live in a predominately NATted world.