[Yuyudo_Comiketo]

All ipv6 shortcomings discussion aside; What I think is the more vital problem to focus on is that the governments clearly don't want us mere mortals to expose our own servers running on our own hardware to the outside world (most often justifying that with "it's for your own security" mantra, for we're all deemed too dumb to figure that out for ourselves).

ISP-imposed ipv4 double NAT (imposed on ISPs by the governments, I am pretty sure about that) reduces our devices to all but dumb receivers which are scarcely superior to TV sets. And no amount of STUNning and TURNing, or buying VPSes can realistically fix this situation, when we can't simply connect our devices directly without resorting to some service provided by some Men in the Middle. And it gets worse, 10 years ago I could buy a static public IP from my ISP for some affordable extra - all ports open unless blocked manually in my firewall - nowadays there remain no ISP around to sell those to the general public. Just no such option anymore. Too much freedom it gave, I guess.

So this begs the question: can ipv6 fix that? Will ipv6 fix that? I'm afraid not.

[Dagger2]

CGNAT isn't imposed by governments, it's imposed by address space exhaustion in v4. v6 fixes it by having enough address space that NAT isn't needed.

Governments share some responsibility here for not mandating a move to v6, leaving everybody in "wait for other people to go first" mode, and one might ask why they've done that but the answer is mostly that governments don't usually get involved in the Internet at that level.

I've not seen an ISP do CGNAT on v6, even when they're doing CGNAT on v4. This makes sense because CGNAT is expensive and doesn't have any benefits for the ISP except for dealing with address space exhaustion. If they wanted to prevent inbound connections then all they would need to do is firewall them.

[yyyk]

>If they wanted to prevent inbound connections then all they would need to do is firewall them.

Note that this already happens to an extent. Some ISPs try to protect their users from UPNP attacks and block certain inbound ports. On the outbound side, many ISPs ban port 25. ISPs could have easily claimed security and limit inbound connections far more - but the reasons for these limits are apparently money+security and not a secret government mandate, so they didn't limit everything.

[yyyk]

Your theory is contrary to what happened in reality: It was governments mandating router and OS support of IPv6 that jump-started protocol support. Had the mandate not existed, MS would not have added IPv6 as early as Win XP (in preview during Win 2000).

[acdha]

This seems like a poorly-researched conspiracy theory. Nobody is forced to use double-NAT, and if there was some secret policy which somehow has avoided leaking for a couple of decades, you'd think they'd have blocked IPv6 deployments, too.

[Yuyudo_Comiketo]

I expected that someone would plant this prefabricated gag phrase of "conspiracy theory" as an argument, thanks for confirming my gut feeling.

[NegativeK]

I've downvoted you for being combative, wide-sweepingly conspiratorial, off-topic, and thinking everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you.

[Yuyudo_Comiketo]

Count yourself downvoted for disguising your own combativeness as didactic neutrality, not being pinpoint-factual and on-topic and for actually being out to get me with your downvote for disagreeing with people who you think were right.

[favflam]

I think US cloud companies got a huge boost when ISPs in the US handicapped users with NAT and asymmetric download speeds. You basically are forced to use a middle-man to serve to the internet.

With IPV6, anyone anywhere can be a host again and p2p applications have a chance to be competitive with Cloud SaaS offerings.

[Klonoar]

Can you provide a source for that government claim?

[Yuyudo_Comiketo]

- Comment sections getting closed for anonymous replies almost everywhere over the course of the last 15 years

- Undisguised surveillance becoming the new normal

- Confinement of all communication to a handful of platforms

- Snowden's disclosures

- Huge datacenters built by NSA to tap into telecom

- Crackdown on p2p sharing

- Push for The Cloud

- Closure of Lavabit and other independent email providers

- Rabid push for phone-based 2fa

- Ongoing merger and conglomeration of everything into a venture-fund-owned megacorporation invisible only for those who call these obvious practices "conspiracy theories" with religious zeal

- Failure of everything initially claimed to be decentrallized to live up the name, including blockchains, IPFS etc

These and many other similar issues combined don't quite make for an illusion that the govenments are willing to allow us to communicate freely via a greater number of tapping and datamining points than they could possibly manage.

Now burn this heretic!

[Klonoar]

Sigh, I need to stop engaging with obvious tinfoil hats.

[Yuyudo_Comiketo]

Oh boy, all my points are definitely beaten with this single one of ineffable precision and efficiency!

What you need is to learn to reinforce your opinion with counterarguments instead of allegorically admitting your inability to formulate them.

[Klonoar]

Nope! You can do better and you should if you want a real discussion.

Have a good one, mate.