IPv6: Why direct end to end connectivity matters

Whilst it makes a lot of technical sense there isnt a realistic or need for this sort of thing for 99% of people currently.

With v6 you would still need someone to manage the filtering aspect, again would be very few people doing that.

Again while I'm for the v6 adoption this article isn't a major motivator for why its needed across most applications.

I would argue mobile networks adoption of v6 is a far more practicle thing.
 
Last edited:
PBCool said:
Whilst it makes a lot of technical sense there isnt a realistic or need for this sort of thing for 99% of people currently.

With v6 you would still need someone to manage the filtering aspect, again would be very few people doing that.

Again while I'm for the v6 adoption this article isn't a major motivator for why its needed across most applications.
Click to expand...
I am also for using new technologies.

But this is like going from an iphone 16 to a 17.

We congratulate MyBB because they got an IPv6. I accessed their site using an Azure IPv6 and got nothing extra.
I am not seeing these "improvements" the other guys are seeing here.
 
PBCool said:
Whilst it makes a lot of technical sense there isnt a realistic or need for this sort of thing for 99% of people currently.

With v6 you would still need someone to manage the filtering aspect, again would be very few people doing that.

Again while I'm for the v6 adoption this article isn't a major motivator for why its needed across most applications.

I would argue mobile networks adoption of v6 is a far more practicle thing.
Click to expand...
I must agree, granted you guys even pointed it out we are as a country pretty far from running out of IP's so what the point? Also it costs the same as a normal ipv4 no? So whats the point?
 
PretoriaWISP said:
I must agree, granted you guys even pointed it out we are as a country pretty far from running out of IP's so what the point? Also it costs the same as a normal ipv4 no? So whats the point?
Click to expand...
Agreed but at the same time the more we leverage v4 the less motivation for v6 but its not simple.
 
PBCool said:
Whilst it makes a lot of technical sense there isnt a realistic or need for this sort of thing for 99% of people currently.

With v6 you would still need someone to manage the filtering aspect, again would be very few people doing that.

Again while I'm for the v6 adoption this article isn't a major motivator for why its needed across most applications.

I would argue mobile networks adoption of v6 is a far more practicle thing.
Click to expand...
My dear ISP has told me that to "fix all my problems with slow international speeds permanently" I need to migrate to IPv6
 
PBCool said:
Whilst it makes a lot of technical sense there isnt a realistic or need for this sort of thing for 99% of people currently.

With v6 you would still need someone to manage the filtering aspect, again would be very few people doing that.

Again while I'm for the v6 adoption this article isn't a major motivator for why its needed across most applications.

I would argue mobile networks adoption of v6 is a far more practicle thing.
Click to expand...
Having IPv6 with dynamic PD is similar to having IPV4 with NAT. We are being told no one would want a static Prefix.

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response where captives or abuse victims develop positive feelings, sympathy, or a emotional bond toward their captors or abusers.

I would argue that we have been held captive for decades by our ISPs and the industry telling us that NAT, and CGNAT is how things are, and how it's always been, and it is good for us. Most users have never known of an alternative. Industry, software, and IOT devices and services have developed mechanisms to work around the limitations of NAT. And most internet users suffer from Stockholm syndrome in this regard.

Some of the software protocols developed to get around NAT:
- UPnP (Universal Plug and Play / WANIPConnection)
- NAT-PMP (NAT Port Mapping Protocol)
- PCP (Port Control Protocol)
- STUN (Session Traversal Utilities for NAT)
- TURN (Traversal Using Relays around NAT)
- ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment)
- UDP / TCP Hole Punching
- IoT Cloud Relays & MQTT Brokers
- HTTP Reverse Tunnels (e.g., Cloudflare Tunnels, ngrok, LocalXpose)
- Reverse SSH Tunnels
- STUN-based Mesh VPNs (Tailscale, ZeroTier, Netbird)
- Dynamic DNS (DynDNS, No-IP, Cloudflare API DDNS)
- Application Layer Gateways (ALG)

Just think for a moment how things would have developed differently if we had enough IPV4 and no NAT:
- Router software would not have had to implement NAT
- Consumer routers would have developed good firewall and firewall port opening by default.
- Our IOT devices and home NAS would be reachable directly from our phones or computers on the road.

In short we would not need any of this convoluted mess of workarounds.

The fact is the internet industry, hardware vendors and so on were to slow to adopt IPv6, adopted NAT as a temporary mechanism, and now we are where we are.

Which brings us to IPv6.
I mentioned up front that having IPv6 with a dynamic prefix puts me in a similar position than having IPv4 with NAT:
- I may have a static /64 host identifier but I am not able to open ports or setup firewall rules, because the Prefix constantly changes.
- If I don't know what my prefix is, I need some sort of service like:
- Dynamic DNS with some service in the LAN to update it. You need to find a domain host that allows updating of your AAAA records if you want to use your own domain.
- Cloudflare tunnels.
- Reverse proxy

So to all the ISPs on here:
- If we are getting IPv6, why on earth should we get a Dynamic Prefix instead of a Static Prefix? Why not make it Static from the outset?
- And whereas the '99% of people won't need it' stat is made up on the fly, many people will benefit. The whole ecosystem of NAT workarounds and IOT cloud services etc. will disappear in the next 2 decades as a result. IPv4 will disappear. We will be left with internet utopia once again. How about you be part of the solution instead of the naysayers?
 
Gimli_ said:
Having IPv6 with dynamic PD is similar to having IPV4 with NAT. We are being told no one would want a static Prefix.

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response where captives or abuse victims develop positive feelings, sympathy, or a emotional bond toward their captors or abusers.

I would argue that we have been held captive for decades by our ISPs and the industry telling us that NAT, and CGNAT is how things are, and how it's always been, and it is good for us. Most users have never known of an alternative. Industry, software, and IOT devices and services have developed mechanisms to work around the limitations of NAT. And most internet users suffer from Stockholm syndrome in this regard.

Some of the software protocols developed to get around NAT:
- UPnP (Universal Plug and Play / WANIPConnection)
- NAT-PMP (NAT Port Mapping Protocol)
- PCP (Port Control Protocol)
- STUN (Session Traversal Utilities for NAT)
- TURN (Traversal Using Relays around NAT)
- ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment)
- UDP / TCP Hole Punching
- IoT Cloud Relays & MQTT Brokers
- HTTP Reverse Tunnels (e.g., Cloudflare Tunnels, ngrok, LocalXpose)
- Reverse SSH Tunnels
- STUN-based Mesh VPNs (Tailscale, ZeroTier, Netbird)
- Dynamic DNS (DynDNS, No-IP, Cloudflare API DDNS)
- Application Layer Gateways (ALG)

Just think for a moment how things would have developed differently if we had enough IPV4 and no NAT:
- Router software would not have had to implement NAT
- Consumer routers would have developed good firewall and firewall port opening by default.
- Our IOT devices and home NAS would be reachable directly from our phones or computers on the road.

In short we would not need any of this convoluted mess of workarounds.

The fact is the internet industry, hardware vendors and so on were to slow to adopt IPv6, adopted NAT as a temporary mechanism, and now we are where we are.

Which brings us to IPv6.
I mentioned up front that having IPv6 with a dynamic prefix puts me in a similar position than having IPv4 with NAT:
- I may have a static /64 host identifier but I am not able to open ports or setup firewall rules, because the Prefix constantly changes.
- If I don't know what my prefix is, I need some sort of service like:
- Dynamic DNS with some service in the LAN to update it. You need to find a domain host that allows updating of your AAAA records if you want to use your own domain.
- Cloudflare tunnels.
- Reverse proxy

So to all the ISPs on here:
- If we are getting IPv6, why on earth should we get a Dynamic Prefix instead of a Static Prefix? Why not make it Static from the outset?
- And whereas the '99% of people won't need it' stat is made up on the fly, many people will benefit. The whole ecosystem of NAT workarounds and IOT cloud services etc. will disappear in the next 2 decades as a result. IPv4 will disappear. We will be left with internet utopia once again. How about you be part of the solution instead of the naysayers?
Click to expand...
In summary I agree we will be doing fixed allocations on v6, there is no need to bring in psychological references around how IP is implemented. Shew.
 
PBCool said:
In summary I agree we will be doing fixed allocations on v6, there is no need to bring in psychological references around how IP is implemented. Shew.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply and excellent to hear that you are implementing static PD on IPv6.

My reference to Stockholm syndrome was aimed at the users frequenting these pages, who never fail to come with a counter argument like 'don't see the advantage of IPv6', 'NAT is a firewall, security by obfuscation', 'just use tailscale', '99% of users won't notice they are on CGNAT' etc.

Nothing personal.

It's more a cry for help, and trying to wake users up to what would be something better. It seems most users here are more concerned about speed and latency for gaming, rather than usability.
 
Gimli_ said:
Thanks for the reply and excellent to hear that you are implementing static PD on IPv6.

My reference to Stockholm syndrome was aimed at the users frequenting these pages, who never fail to come with a counter argument like 'don't see the advantage of IPv6', 'NAT is a firewall, security by obfuscation', 'just use tailscale', '99% of users won't notice they are on CGNAT' etc.

Nothing personal.

It's more a cry for help, and trying to wake users up to what would be something better. It seems most users here are more concerned about speed and latency for gaming, rather than usability.
Click to expand...
If usability was an issue for the majority of Internet users we would be well aware of it. For technical users and for future usability I agree v6 is the only way forward.
 
PBCool said:
If usability was an issue for the majority of Internet users we would be well aware of it. For technical users and for future usability I agree v6 is the only way forward.
Click to expand...
Well now you know. I have amplified the voices of everyone commenting on CGNAT, and suffering in silence with these workarounds mentioned above, thinking it is just how it is, and trying to make it work.
 
The video makes a good argument for techie self-hosters, not for “99% of people.” IPv6 adoption is mostly an infrastructure-scale necessity... clean home-lab publishing is a good example of the benefits.
 
JerryMungo said:
The video makes a good argument for techie self-hosters, not for “99% of people.” IPv6 adoption is mostly an infrastructure-scale necessity... clean home-lab publishing is a good example of the benefits.
Click to expand...
It is a bit more nuanced than this. Not only for running services at home.

Why do I need my alarm system to open a session to a cloud service, who knows where, so that I can engage or disengage it remotely? And why do I need my LG fridge to open a session to some could service in Asia so that I can know if the door is open, or for me to put it on a lower cooling cycle when I am on holiday.

Why do I need a cloud service so that I can connect to my network storage?

These are all consumer appliances that many non-technical users have. Instead of your app on your phone or computer connecting with them directly, you have to have many vendor cloud accounts. It should not have to be necessary at all.

And if we have Static PD IPv6, which can't come soon enough, my point is, these IOT services and vendors will change over time and do away with the requirement, thereby making everyone's life easier and more secure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X