Re:IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
by JohnFen on Wednesday October 23, 2024 @10:36AM
(#41925464)
And then there are people like myself who host publicly-available internet services from my home internet service that's absolutely behind CGNAT. That makes things a bit more hassle to get working, but it's certainly possible.
Re:IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
by throw0101b on Wednesday October 23, 2024 @08:39AM
(#41924443)
> I think it’d be nice to self-host things to, but it’s inaccurate and even a bit insulting to claim that the millions of people creating content on the internet today don’t exist.
It's not just about self-hosting, but peer-to-peer clients as well.
When Skype originally came out it was P2P, but because of NAT they created (ran?) "super-nodes" that could do things like STUN/TURN/ICE. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to (e.g.) communicate with folks without a central authoritative server that could be warranted by various regimes?
Re:IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
by umanwizard on Wednesday October 23, 2024 @11:31AM
(#41926063)
I agree! I was just taking issue with the overly broad claim that being behind NAT only lets you consume, not create.
I think it’d be nice to self-host things to, but it’s inaccurate and even a bit insulting to claim that the millions of people creating content on the internet today don’t exist.