Comment on what's the simple way to map services to subdomains instead of specifying the port number?
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 weeks agoDo you not have internet access?
Comment on what's the simple way to map services to subdomains instead of specifying the port number?
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 weeks agoDo you not have internet access?
Yes but all my services work in my LAN even if I am not connected to the outside world. Obviously not fully functional, but everything runs.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
You are getting confused by NAT
In IPv6 there is no NAT. NAT makes things more complicated and adds overhead that isn’t needed. In the old (pre Nat) internet IPs worked like there were suppose to and each device had its own routable address. IPv6 fixes this by both using a massive address space and allowing hosts to get infinite IPs. You can assign a IP address to each service since there is so much space.
dislabled@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
You’re right that IPv6 doesn’t need NAT for its original purpose (address scarcity). But “there is no NAT in IPv6” isn’t quite accurate: NAT still exists in IPv6
NAT66 (stateful, like NAT44) exists but is discouraged. More relevant is NPTv6, a standardized stateless 1:1 prefix translation, not the many-to-one port-overloaded NAT you’re used to from IPv4. It doesn’t do address+port multiplexing, so it doesn’t break peer-to-peer the way NAT44 does. So the “NAT is the enemy of p2p” argument applies to stateful NAT44-style translation — not really to NPTv6, which preserves end-to-end host addressability and just swaps the prefix.
You can absolutely build a fully functional internal network on ULA (fd00::/8) alone — routing, DNS, services, all independent of any ISP-delegated prefix. But ULA is explicitly non-routable on the public internet, so a pure ULA network is isolated: internal-only, no internet reachability.