← Back to context Comment by eptcyka 19 hours ago Why not use plain IPv6 instead? 6 comments eptcyka Reply TuxPowered 14 hours ago Even with IPv6 you still might have stateful firewalls allowing only for outbound connection at both ends (e.g. a CPE a.k.a. “WiFi router”) and to establish communication you’d need to punch a hole in those firewalls. brewmarche 11 hours ago That’s true we won’t get rid of hole-punching with IPv6. But at least it will get rid of TURN. majorchord 27 minutes ago How will it get rid of TURN? Can't IPv6 addresses still be firewalled by your carrier like they do already for IPv4? gzread 9 hours ago The hole punching is so much simpler because you don't need to guess your own address and port - you just know it 1 reply → cbdevidal 18 hours ago V6 adoption has reached 46.82%[1]. So it is increasingly viable for this.[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
TuxPowered 14 hours ago Even with IPv6 you still might have stateful firewalls allowing only for outbound connection at both ends (e.g. a CPE a.k.a. “WiFi router”) and to establish communication you’d need to punch a hole in those firewalls. brewmarche 11 hours ago That’s true we won’t get rid of hole-punching with IPv6. But at least it will get rid of TURN. majorchord 27 minutes ago How will it get rid of TURN? Can't IPv6 addresses still be firewalled by your carrier like they do already for IPv4? gzread 9 hours ago The hole punching is so much simpler because you don't need to guess your own address and port - you just know it 1 reply →
brewmarche 11 hours ago That’s true we won’t get rid of hole-punching with IPv6. But at least it will get rid of TURN. majorchord 27 minutes ago How will it get rid of TURN? Can't IPv6 addresses still be firewalled by your carrier like they do already for IPv4? gzread 9 hours ago The hole punching is so much simpler because you don't need to guess your own address and port - you just know it 1 reply →
majorchord 27 minutes ago How will it get rid of TURN? Can't IPv6 addresses still be firewalled by your carrier like they do already for IPv4?
gzread 9 hours ago The hole punching is so much simpler because you don't need to guess your own address and port - you just know it 1 reply →
cbdevidal 18 hours ago V6 adoption has reached 46.82%[1]. So it is increasingly viable for this.[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
Even with IPv6 you still might have stateful firewalls allowing only for outbound connection at both ends (e.g. a CPE a.k.a. “WiFi router”) and to establish communication you’d need to punch a hole in those firewalls.
That’s true we won’t get rid of hole-punching with IPv6. But at least it will get rid of TURN.
How will it get rid of TURN? Can't IPv6 addresses still be firewalled by your carrier like they do already for IPv4?
The hole punching is so much simpler because you don't need to guess your own address and port - you just know it
1 reply →
V6 adoption has reached 46.82%[1]. So it is increasingly viable for this.
[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html