• IPv6 and NAT (was: Cheap Hosting...)

    From Rampage@VERT/SESTAR to Ogg on Sun Mar 21 09:50:52 2021
    Re: Cheap Hosting...
    By: Ogg to Rampage on Sat Mar 20 2021 18:56:00


    the main thing i don't care for with IPv6 is the loss of NAT
    which, granted, is not needed, but it is a way to kind of
    protect your devices by keeping them hidden... IPv6 is not
    meant to be hidden and every address is meant to be
    accessible from everywhere... it is a huge change from IPv4
    thinking, really...

    Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router
    with a NAT?

    there is but only for certain uses, AIUI... here are some quick quotes that may help understanding...

    "Because NAT exists to overcome a shortage of IPv4 addresses, and because IPv6 has no such shortage, IPv6 networks do not require NAT."

    "What is correct in relation to NAT for IPv6? It is a temporary mechanism to assist in the migration from IPv4 to IPv6."

    "Nat for ipv6 is strongly discouraged by IETF. ... People use NAT for a variety of reasons. Address availability, they want more addresses for internal hosts than they have public addresses. Address independence, they want to
    maintain their internal addresses independent of changes to their connectivity."

    "NAT64 is an IPv6 transition mechanism that facilitates communication between IPv6 and IPv4 hosts by using a form of network address translation (NAT). The NAT64 gateway creates a mapping between the IPv6 and the IPv4
    addresses, which may be manually configured or determined automatically."

    "The end-to-end connectivity problems that are caused by NAT are solved because the number of routes increases with the number of nodes that are connected to the Internet. ... Answers Explanation & Hints: The large number of
    public IPv6 addresses eliminates the need for NAT."

    the above quotes taken from

    https://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+NAT


    )\/(ark

    ---
    Synchronet The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR
  • From Ogg@VERT/CAPCITY2 to Rampage on Sun Mar 21 17:22:00 2021
    Hello Rampage!

    ** On Sunday 21.03.21 - 09:50, you wrote to me:

    Interesting. So there is not such thing as an IPv6 router
    with a NAT?

    there is but only for certain uses, AIUI... here are some quick quotes
    that may help understanding...

    8< [snip]

    "The end-to-end connectivity problems that are caused by NAT are solved because the number of routes increases with the number of nodes that are connected to the Internet. ... Answers Explanation & Hints: The large number of public IPv6 addresses eliminates the need for NAT."

    the above quotes taken from

    https://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+NAT

    I still think that a NAT that hides internal devices from the
    outside world is a good thing.

    IPv6 will be a long way off for me. I don't see Luckymobile
    supporting it and I don't get any indication that Acanac (my DSL
    serivce) is either.


    --- OpenXP 5.0.49
    * Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
    Synchronet CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
  • From Nelgin@VERT/EOTLBBS to Ogg on Mon Mar 22 02:06:29 2021
    Ogg wrote:

    IPv6 will be a long way off for me. I don't see Luckymobile
    supporting it and I don't get any indication that Acanac (my DSL
    serivce) is either.

    https://tunnelbroker.net free ipv6 over ipv4 tunnel

    I've been running one for years. Very stable. Not as fast a native ipv6 or
    ipv4 but still you can get decent speeds. All my VPS boxes run ipv6 nativly.

    :~$ ping -4 -c 5 www.yahoo.com
    PING new-fp-shed.wg1.b.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=39.9 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=40.5 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=40.7 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=40.7 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.bf1.yahoo.com (74.6.143.25): icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=39.7 ms

    :~$ ping -6 -c 5 www.yahoo.com
    PING www.yahoo.com(media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000)) 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=31.1 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=36.3 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=32.8 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=31.7 ms
    64 bytes from media-router-fp73.prod.media.vip.ne1.yahoo.com (2001:4998:44:3507::8000): icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=31.3 ms


    Interestingly for me, pinging yahoo via ipv6 tunnel is quicker than over the ipv4 native connection. Now that was surprising!


    I have OpenWRT running on my router which will run the ipv6 tunnel for me.

    ---
    Synchronet End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Rampage@VERT/SESTAR to Ogg on Mon Mar 22 04:09:21 2021
    Re: IPv6 and NAT
    By: Ogg to Rampage on Sun Mar 21 2021 17:22:00


    https://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+NAT

    I still think that a NAT that hides internal devices from the
    outside world is a good thing.

    same here...

    IPv6 will be a long way off for me. I don't see Luckymobile
    supporting it and I don't get any indication that Acanac (my DSL
    serivce) is either.

    i have IPv6 inside and out but my firewall doesn't support it... until it does, im going to remain IPv4... i don't plan on switching firewalls, nor do i care to, any time soon...


    )\/(ark

    ---
    Synchronet The SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR