IPv6
Comment on Discord lowers free upload limit to 10MB: “Storage management is expensive”
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 week agoThe issue is the absence of being able to port forward in a lot of places. UPNP exists on some networks but it’s usually disabled. But if we want actual peer to peer we’re going to need to implement some way to accept incoming connections EVERYWHERE.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 week ago
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 week ago
What about it
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
it doesn’t need NAT topology, at all. There is literally zero reason to use it. Direct P2P networking is so much easier over ipv6
GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Once an end-to-end, encrypted, connection is established between a pair of peers then anything can be sent through it. The establishment proces is generally facilitated by a server of some description so neither peer needs to allow inbound connections. (I’m a long, long way from being an expert on this and happy to be corrected - but this seems like network fundamentals?)
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
this is true, but the problem is that it’s really complicated, and not always reliable. Mostly due to NATing within the networks. Firewalls don’t help but you can get around those easily enough.
There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a reliable P2P network connection over a NAT unless one peer isn’t NATed. Which is unlikely.
TL;DR we would probably ddos the internet very quickly if we tried at the scale of something like discord.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 week ago
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Firefox: Browser missing required feature. This application needs support for WebSockets, WebRTC, and WebAssembly.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Where do you see that? I just sent a file from Firefox on Debian to Vivaldi on Android with it to test.
There’s also just plain wormhole (github.com/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole) as an application for Windows, Mac, and Linux if that web instance doesn’t work.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
IF ONLY WE COULD USE IPV6 WE WOULDNT BE HAVING THIS PROBLEM
YES FUCK YOU TOO COMCAST.
Strykker@programming.dev 1 week ago
Gonna be real here, I’m in tech, there is no fucking way I’m gonna open my PC to the entire fucking internet. Vulnerabilities are everywhere and no code is perfect. Firewalls and nat help stop so many attacks from the start.
Even if ipv6 is common I will assume most implementations will be nat based.
FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 1 week ago
IPv6 does not require you to open your machine to the Internet, even without making use of a NAT. Sure you get an IP that’s valid on the whole internet, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can send you traffic.
maxwellfire@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You definitely use a firewall, but there’s no need for NAT in almost all cades with ipv6. But even with a firewall, p2p becomes easier even if you still have to do firewall hole punching
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
brother, use a firewall. NAT does nothing for this, a single stateful firewall will do more for device security than a NAT existing solely by itself.
A nat doesn’t even do anything other than provide some basic level of device anonymity. If you didn’t have a firewall it would still be accessible, you would just need to either be really good at guessing ports, or sniff for traffic that’s relevant lol.
Strykker@programming.dev 1 week ago
Except the NAT device will stonewall traffic on every port except the ones I open, for my entire network, and then I can just worry about securing the software listening on those few ports, instead of having to worry about the firewalls on every device I own.
Archer@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Comcast is one of the biggest IPv6 ISPs though?
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
not big enough.