Comment on Novel attack against virtually all VPN apps neuters their entire purpose
yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I think this is a good enough reason to actually put in some effort to phase out ipv4 and dhcp. There shouldn’t be a way for some random node on the network to tell my node what device to route traffic over. Stateless ipv6 for the win.
9point6@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Efforts have been put in for several decades now
I still remember all the hype around “IPv6” day about 12 years ago…
Any day now…
Scrollone@feddit.it 1 month ago
Honestly I’m on a IPv6 provider (with CGNAT for IPv4-only services) and everything works fine.
I think people are just lazy.
9point6@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t think it’s laziness, it’s financial incentive—there’s not much demand for something that might be quite a lot of work from a lot of companies’ perspectives.
Hell, IIRC AWS only started supporting IPv6 completely on the cloud service that hosts a huge percentage of the internet’s traffic about 3 years ago
I’m a little curious about your situation though—with regards to the CGNAT, does everyone on your ISP effectively share one (or a small pool of) IPv4 address(es)? Do you ever see issues with IP restrictions? (e.g. buying tickets for events, etc)
Scrollone@feddit.it 1 month ago
Luckily I haven’t noticed any restrictions.
My provider uses the same IPv4 for four different customers, and it lets each one of them use a different range of 12000 ports each (of course, the random user on ports 1-12000 is the “luckiest” one because he could theoretically host a website on port 80 or 443).