← Back to context

Comment by throw0101c

14 hours ago

> You mean it's fixed by NAT and CGNAT. Because it's works just fine for me.

CGNAT works for you? Do you play video games at all? Because there are all sorts of people for which it doesn't.

The fact that you may be fortunate enough to get a publicly-accessible IPv4 address on your WAN interface does not mean everyone else is. This type of attitude seems to be akin to "I gots mine."

I don't play this kind of games at all, but I still can sympathize with you if it's your preferred pastime, and it doesn't work as good as you'd like. I just don't think it warrants a conclusion that those nets in which we are arguing are broken. They are tangibly, observably doing pretty well. And I find that the idea that in a shiny world of pure IPv6 central servers/nodes would decentralize themselves comes from deep misunderstanding about what "normal" humans want.

  • > And I find that the idea that in a shiny world of pure IPv6 central servers/nodes would decentralize themselves comes from deep misunderstanding about what "normal" humans want.

    It's not about "what 'normal' humans want", it's about what can even be built.

    It's currently hard to build decentralized anything now, and it'd be nice to open things up to see what creative things (if any) people could come up with if the network allowed for more peer-to-peer connections.