Guess the issue is that us big bads are blocked in china. So while ccp can leverage social media to monitor western countries. Western goverments can not leverage western social media to do the same in china.

From other countries that have regulations: prevent known criminals, known serious mentally ill people, known abusers, from having guns. Enforce gun lockers, and responsible ownership. Enforce education and training.
Most countries still have guns you know. Even just the gun lockers would prevent the us rampant murdering toddlers.

They can not possibly ban using ip? That is wild. With the amount of CGNAT beeing used, hundreds of people can be behind a single ip.

Suicide assist is horrible. Around here there is no middle of the road separator, to narrow road. So it tries to hit head first the traffic in the opposite way.

If there is a ipv6 service online. That you want to reach from a v4 only client. You can set up a fixed 1:1 nat on your firewall where you define a fake internal ipv4 address -> destination NAT onto the public ipv6 address of the service. And SRC NAT64 embed your clients internal v4 into the source ipv6 for the return traffic. And provide a internal dns view A record pointing to the fake internal ip record. It would work, but does not scale very well. Since you would have to set this up for every ipv6 ip.

A better solution would be to use a dualstack SOCKS5 proxy with dns forwarding where the client would use the IPv6 of the proxy for the connection. But that does not use NAT tho.

The best solution is to deploy IPv6 ofcourse. ;)

That is not how it works. You can have a home network on ipv6. And it can reach all of ipv4 via nat ( just like ipv4 do today). A net with only ipv4 can not reach any ipv6 without a proxy that terminst the v4 connection and make a new v6 connection. since ipv6 is backwards compatible. But ipv4 is naturally not forwards compatible.

Also it is the default deny of the stateful firewall that always coexist with NAT, since NAT depends on that state, that is the security in a NAT router.
That default deny is not in any way dependant on the NAT part.

But DNS rarely break. The meme about it beeing DNS’s fault is more often then not just a symptom of the complexity of IPv4 NAT problem.

If i should guesstimate i think atleast 95% of the dns issues i have ever seen, are just confusion of what dns views they are in. confusion of inside and outside nat records. And forgetting to configure the inside when doing the outside or vice verca. DNS is very robust and stable when you can get rid of that complexity.

That beeing said, there are people that insist on obscurity beeing security (sigh) and want to keep doing dns views when using IPv6. But even then things are much easier when the result would be the same in either view.

https://xkcd.com/538/

I felt dirty! and broke so much shit when i had to implement NAT on networks in the mid 90’s. Nowdays with ipv6 and getting rid of NAT is much more liberating. The difference is staggering!

• you do not need NAT any longer, firewall is the security, just like on ipv4, just less obscurity.
• you do not need dns views, to workaround NAT any more
• you do not need hairpin NAT to workaround NAT any more
• you do not need to renumber to resize a network. they are always /64, and the answer to how many hosts can it fit is: ALL of them!
• many ALG’s will be unnecessary since there is not NAT.
• vpn’s are easier, since it can be the same address both inside and outside the vpn, the firewall (or host even) enforces the encryption.
• vpn’s are MUCH easier since you will have less rfc1918 collisions due to some other network using the rfc1918 of the vpn’s network
• vpn’s are MUCH MUCH easier since you will have less rfc1918 collisions due to you using the rfc1918 of the vpn partner network, to 1:1 nat a previous vpn network you collided with some months ago… ARGH!!!
• vpn are generally less required, heck i swear 95% of the time the VPN are just to workaround the NAT problem and the data is pointlessly double or triple encrypted.
• you can make more granular firewall rules (eg the spesific host, or network of the source address, instead of the whole enterprise’s public ip) this is real tangible improved security, where any random machine in a network you do not control. do not automatically have openings into your own network.
• firewall objects can if it is suited easily use and depend on FQDN DNS objects when allowing traffic. reducing the need of coordinating firewall object ip address changes between 15 companies.
• firewall rules are easier, more readable, and much more predictable how they will work. All the hairpin nat, public to private nat, private to public nat for a thing that need a different public ip, 1:1 nat for a separate zone, NAT to a vpn or 50 (where 10 of them are 1:1 nat due to collisions, making you require 4 dns views of the same ip space!! ) very quickly gets messy and unreadable. this is probably the largest security benefit. just to reduce the complexity.
• much easier to get people to use dns, since nobody wants to remember ipv6 addresses :D
• nibbles in the ipv6 address can have meanings you assign to them, making the networks and structure both easy to remember and logically structured.
• aggregating routes becomes very easy if you design your network that way.
• firewall policies can become easier if you design your network that way.
• your routing tables is leaner and easier, and of a better consistency. We have 1 large public ipv6 prefix, but 25ish ipv4 prefixes of all kinds of various sizes.
• no need to spend $$ to buy even more ipv4 prefixes.
• no need to have spent hundreds of $$ on a new ipv4 prefix only to be unable to use them for over a year because you need to sanitize the addresses from all the reputation filters. and constantly hound geo ip database providers to update the new country of the prefix. (i am bitter, can you tell…)
• did i mention no need to renumber since you need to grow the /24 to /23 due to to many hosts in a network ?
• did i mention no need to renumber 2 /24’s to /25’s to make space for that larger /23.
• you do not even need any ipv4 addresses any more, use a public NAT64 service, for outgoing. and for incoming just use one of the many free public ipv4 to ipv6 proxies for your services online. for a homelab i really like http://v4-frontend.netiter.com/ (go support them) But most large business l networks use cloudflare, or akamai
• since you do not need your ipv4 address space any more, you can ~~sell them for a profit $$$ ~~ return them to the RIR and give some address space to one of the thousands of companies struggling because they do not have any IPv4 : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/ipv4-waiting-list/
• much lower latency on ipv6, since you do not go across a cloud based ipv4 to ipv6 proxy in order to reach the service ;)

Now the greatest and best effect of ipv6 is none of the above. It is that with ipv6 we have a slim hope of reclaiming some of what made the Internet GREAT in the first place. When we all stood on equal footing. Anyone could host their own service. Now we are all vassals of the large companies that have made the common person into a CGNAT4444 using consumer mindlessly lapping up what the large company providers sees fit to provide us. with no way to even try to be a real and true part of the Internet. Fight the companies that want to make you a eyeball in their statistic, Set up your own IPv6 service on the Internet today !

Never been an issue for me debian+kde+steam it started right up the first time i tried. No tweaking needed.

China block much of the internet so who knows with china. Do not know if anyone have real china numbers of IPv6 deployment. They also had their own “IPv9” that was rumored some years ago that may or may not have been used internally.

Not much choise i guess. Usa and europe grabbed the majority of available ipv4 space. Asia got a bit. And only scraps and leftovers for africa and latin america.

You do as well, if you run any operating system newer then the last 10 years.

That should simply not be allowed. Cgnat for ipv4 is fine if they also provide proper ipv6

Goverments (depending on juristiction) have laws requiering isp’s to keep track of cgnat port combos. So not only is there no privacy from ipv4 cgnat. Now the isp must also spend a lot of money on the nat state tracking database.
If you need that kind of privacy, use a vpn and the tor onion network.

I am 50/50 between incompetence. Or so they can keep on charging extra for a static ip.

Someyhing like searxng? Or what do you imagine?

Other xmpp servers that want to yes. But i have nobody that uses xmpp again.

Helldivers 2 works fine on my debian using steam. As do most other games. Some DRM are windows only. And i will care about that when i have finished my steam backlog