socsa comments on We don't talk about IPv5

[–] socsa@piefed.social 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Meh, the idea of having every address be globally routable makes a lot of sense. NAT is a great bandaid but it's still a bandaid. It still limits how peer to peer and multicast applications function, especially on larger networks.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

NAT444 is shit. I can't even host a web server without routing it through a VPN, and my ISP can't work out how to provide an IPv6 addresses yet. Give it to me and I will work out how to use it.

Slight update - Just looked and apparently they had a goal of rolling out IPv6 addresses to all customers by earlier this year. I'll check my router config tomorrow and who knows. Maybe I will be able to get one now? Would be pretty sweet.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] cepelinas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I am sorry to interrupt, my ISP gave me an ipv6 address, but I just can't access anything through it even when I specify it in the firewall, maybe they are blocking this functionality because they sell static ips.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I can use dynamic DNS, the problem is I can't host over NAT444 without something like a VPN.

Still not been given an IPv6 address though.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent