News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Retiring Test-Ipv6.com by AtlasBarfed on Sunday October 05, 2025 @02:51PM (#45484139)
I ran Starlink for a while. CGNAT. No fun running servers. 5G internet? CGNAT. ISPs that support IPV6, they will probably still run NATs.

So here's a question: if your ipv6 is behind CGNAT and calls an ipv6 on the other side of the CGNAT: is it still one-way, or un-NAT'ed?

And you agree the non-oligarch internet is ipv4, along with a large part of the oligarch internet.

Re:Retiring Test-Ipv6.com by toast0 on Sunday October 05, 2025 @03:31PM (#45484476)
> So here's a question: if your ipv6 is behind CGNAT and calls an ipv6 on the other side of the CGNAT: is it still one-way, or un-NAT'ed?

Depends, it's easy to do things like 464xlat and NAT64 where you route those address spaces through the CGNAT and other stuff direct. Or through a stateful firewall (which could be the CGNAT or something else) if you really need a stateful firewall.

Re:Retiring Test-Ipv6.com by Symbiote on Monday October 06, 2025 @02:34AM (#45488255)
IPv6 clients would not go through a CGNAT (or any other NAT) to connect to a remote IPv6 address. Including on Starlink.

Exceptions are so unusual you should provide a specific example of an ISP with this configuration.