Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Friday February 02, 2024 @07:44PM (#39236497)

and if you want to connect to anything ipv4-only like, say GitHub, then what?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by api on Friday February 02, 2024 @08:09PM (#39236652)

How is GitHub still IPv4 only? Ridiculous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Friday February 02, 2024 @08:15PM (#39236682)

They're not the only ones either. OpenAI also doesn't have ipv6 APIs, and neither does Stripe, many many others....

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by Shorn on Friday February 02, 2024 @09:28PM (#39237077)

Or, y'know.... 89% of AWS own services: https://awsipv6.neveragain.de/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by RinTohsaka on Friday February 02, 2024 @11:24PM (#39237518)

See also:

https://ipv6.fail/domain?filter=sinners

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @01:34AM (#39238049)

Tbh this site is pretty misleading. Fastly and Cloudflare support ipv6 pretty well in their productы, it’s just that their marketing team apparently don’t care

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by diggan on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:38PM (#39244999)

> Tbh this site is pretty misleading

The website is pretty explicit about that it's testing if a domain/website is available over IPv6 vs IPv4. Clicking on a website also sends you to https://ipv6.fail/domain/cloudflare.net/ where it's even more explicit what they're testing against. Wouldn't call it misleading exactly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by chaz6 on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:30AM (#39238815)

Use a nat64 gateway (a list is at https://nat64.xyz).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by thelastparadise on Saturday February 03, 2024 @08:49AM (#39240312)

Just bolting on thing after thing to make it sort of work, maybe, sometimes.

I'll be sticking with ipv4.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by paulddraper on Saturday February 03, 2024 @01:30PM (#39243238)

IPv6 NAT is "bolting on thing after thing" but IPv4 NAT is good architecture :P

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @03:39PM (#39244511)

You do realize you also need dns64 for this to work right? So in fact your proposed architecture is strictly worse

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by orangeboats on Sunday February 04, 2024 @10:09AM (#39250748)

It doesn't take much effort to setup DNS64 though.

Source: I have used NAT64 myself before.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @03:39PM (#39244516)

Not something i would use in prod and also needs dns64

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by pryz on Friday February 02, 2024 @09:16PM (#39237013)

Except that way many many AWS services can't do ipv6.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by diggan on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:36PM (#39244985)

And since AWS/Amazon gets more money by not supporting IPv6 everywhere, why would they enable it?

[ Parent | on HN ]