It's crazy I can get fiber to my house in the US, but not IPv6.
I was doing this back when I had BT in London, my internet speed back then was pretty abysmal and it would randomly drop routes- ironically this tunnel actually improved my internet (because of the routes not being dropped, not the speed).
And they can always tell your ISP if they don't like paying to connect to the tunnelling server they should just implement v6.
It wasn't always like this, but it was for me the last time I tried.
Our free tunnel broker service enables you to reach the IPv6 Internet by tunneling over existing IPv4 connections from your IPv6 enabled host or router to one of our IPv6 routers.
https://tunnelbroker.net/If they have enough v4 for all their customers, sure fine.
On v6 you don’t have that problem.
I strongly disagree. That's obsolete knowledge, thrown around by people who want to be considered security conscious but haven't actually updated their knowledge in many years. A statement with similar implications might be "security conscious operators require their users to rotate their passwords monthly", which is what a lot of people use to think a decade ago, and now what it really communicates is that you're talking to a dinosaur.
IPv6 will never replace IPv4 because it is a different protocol rather than merely a new version. The name is a lie.
No, it's not. If you really want a NAT there is no reason you can't use a NAT with ipv6. In fact, it can work even better because instead of using a random port for the translation, you can use a random ip address for each connection.
You're conflating the two parts of NAT: address translation and inbound filtering. A router can block any inbound traffic coming from WAN, even if the IPv6s on the LAN side are public.
In fact, hole punching for IPv4 shows this distinction. By default inbound traffic is blocked, but as soon as private host has opened up a connection, it is (indirectly) reachable and nameable (via the routers public IP + port).
BTW, static IPv4 NAT with public addresses on both sides exists as well.
And as you say, hole punching is still “PUBLIC IP” + port. Not an IP and any port you fancy unless the firewall was configured correctly.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe you’re confused, maybe IPv6 is just rubbish. Maybe all 3.
Otherwise, what are the practical differences?
But if you've ever had to deal with endpoint security, if you're just doing static rule based blocking/throttling, /32 or /24 blocking is often your best option. Thanks to CGNAT this often means having a pretty large impact since an ISP's residential customer might end up getting randomly assigned a "bad" address and the cooldown for these rules is often months long or more.
In IPv6 land, you can just block a /128 or even a /64 and rarely hit anyone else in the crossfire.
tracert -4 google.com
tracert -6 google.com
I do get very different hops and latency.
However for “happy eyeballs” algo to fallback to IPv4, latency needs to be very bad on IPv6.
Especially for DNS, browsers don’t wait “very long” for the AAAA (v6) record to be resolved when they already have the A record (v4) and will start the v4 connection after at max 50ms (iirc thats the spec value, but imo it is too long and most browsers wait less I think).
The good news is that if the AAAA still arrives later it will be cached, thus this only affects the first connection to a site.
As for the actual v6 connection being slower (lets say both A and AAAA come from cache) the browser will start a v6 connection and only fall back to v4 if the connection isn’t established within some time (I think the spec says 250ms).
And to make this all more complicated HTTP1/2/3 enter the decision matrix. I.e. should the browser rather try v4/http3 than v6/http2? Opinions probably differ.
All of this is also on the critical path to a website loading for the user, thats why all of those waits cannot be too long. At some point the benefit of the better protocol will be outweighed by waiting. Even worse if the website doesn’t support v6 and the wait was for nothing.
For many years and even how there are networks that advertise they can do ipv6 and hand out real addresses but nothing works.
IPv4 is old, very old. But how is it broken? It's literally been working just fine since it came out.
That there are limited addresses is something else: it doesn't mean it's broken.
I don't care that spying/surveillance devices have more trouble spying on me with IPv4 than with IPv6 and I don't care that some apps have a harder time establishing connection.
IPv4 works. SSH over IPv4 works. Browsing the Web over IPv4 works.
It is broken for you by upstream NAT and CGNAT.
The Internet was supposed to be a purely peer-to-peer network, where the addresses on each side of a connection pointed to an end node. That's why protocols like FTP or SIP break when NAT is used, and why you have to play games with port forwarding if you want to run services from your house (assuming you have a public IP address at all).
Because just about all applications are currently architected in such a manner.
When Skype first came out many moons ago it allowed peer-to-peer connections with clients, but a lot of clients were behind NAT (especially ones that could not do PCP or UPnP), so Skype had to come up with the notion of "super nodes" that could do relaying.
Protocols like STUN/TURN/ICE/etc had to be developed to deal with all of this blocking of traffic.
If clients could know their 'real' addresses and allow things like PCP (which is often needed for (e.g.) video games), then perhaps there could me less strictly consuming and more collaborating.
The whole idea of "consumer" and "server" nodes is so baked into how people think about networking they don't even realize it. But that's not how the Internet was intended to be in the first place.
And if you seriously believe that Dropbox appeared because of NAT, and not because people prefer out-of-the-box solutions, I can only suggest you to go out of your bubble, and discuss technical issues with random people.
"Intended" btw is not even an argument. Internet wasn't intended for many things which we happily do here.
And yes, Dropbox does exist because of NAT, or more generally the fact that "consumers" are second-class citizens on the Internet. If everyone had a publicly routed address and an entry in DNS - which is how the Internet was originally envisioned - we'd have solutions that don't require a third party server.
Both of your examples just show how deep the Stockholm syndrome is. IPv4's limitations have shifted the way people think about networking so much that they rarely even realize they're doing it. But this isn't the way it was supposed to be. "Intended" is completely valid when we're talking about how something has strayed from its original design and the ramifications of it.
I'm not naive enough to think that we can ever get rid of the "consumer" and "producer" ideas that have crept into everyone's head. But it's important to remember that these ideas came about only because of limitations in the protocol, not because they're some kind of natural law of how global networks function.
CG-NAT breaks all this. iroh relies on relays from people with non-broken internet (no CG-NAT).
Yes, and DynDNS too. Which is fine, cause it works, and that is what I said. The claim to which it replies is that people have to pay to Dropbox cause poor souls were stopped from sharing files using existing technologies like FTP by the damned IPv4, and not because they simply prefer an out-of-the-box GUI thing.
Relying on peer-to-peer relays also doesn't scale, which is why Skype dropped its supernode architecture.
Dropbox gained popularity *BECAUSE IT MADE IT EASY TO DO THIS WHEN YOU'RE STUCK BEHIND NAT TRASH*. By the time it was even a thought in anyone's brain the internet had already been ruined by that garbage.
It would never have existed in a world without NAT because it wouldn't have been needed, syncing data between computers you owned that all had publicly routable addresses is a much simpler problem.
Every ISP that has CGNAT v4 without providing full v6 needs to be shut down. They are either incompetent or actively choosing to make their users' service less useful to restrict them and/or encourage "upgrades". Internet service has a public routable IP address, period.
I'm sorry, but this claim is one of the brightest examples of false consenses effect I've seen in ages. People generally just prefer an icon on desktop to click/tap. And that's the reason Dropbox found its audience.
Dropbox gained popularity because none of us can or want to bother to do it with FTP, with the exception of a very small and determined minority.
Why do you think that even FANG engineers use cloud storage systems such as Dropbox/iCloud/OneDrive/Google Drive/etc. Can't an elite software engineer put together a FTP server?
Why do you think Dropbox et al are still a thing in spite of projects such as Syncthing?
This is not the only instance where user experience and convenience show their value. Look at Docker, for example. The "aktually" crowd will be fast to say that anyone can do the same with chroot et al, but they will again be missing the whole point. It's the same thing why Microsoft tried to invest in Aspire even though Docker is here.
It's like complaining that people can buy bread when all they need to make their own is flour, water, salt, and yeast. That's completely besides the point, ain't it?
CGNAT works for you? Do you play video games at all? Because there are all sorts of people for which it doesn't.
The fact that you may be fortunate enough to get a publicly-accessible IPv4 address on your WAN interface does not mean everyone else is. This type of attitude seems to be akin to "I gots mine."