Software that still does not work because it uses hardcoded ipv4 addresses or sockets: Steam, WoW (probably many other Games too), node/npm (before version 17), but for the most part it works! The offenders can also mostly be fixed using clatd.
[Edited to clarify: Blizzard broke it, not my ISP]
I had not heard of https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd before, might be new to others as well:
" It allows an IPv6-only host to have IPv4 connectivity that is translated to IPv6 before being routed to an upstream PLAT (which is typically a Stateful NAT64 operated by the ISP) and there translated back to IPv4 before being routed to the IPv4 internet. "
Is there something in the spec that makes this hard to do. It's been 20 years.
I can then trivially
* put some devices on a VLAN (ie, a VOIP phone) and it will have a public IP, globally routable.
This works well in my experience, latency is super annoying on VoIP and for some reason behind a NAT sometimes it seems to route media through a third party server!
For a small business you can put a PBX on the VLAN and folks can remote register to it trivially (ie, phone.companyZ.com) - with COVID this is great.
You can VPN terminate more easily with a static ip block.
At home I can do a game server on the static IP block or I can host some of the simultaneous music composition stuff (trivially).
My question is simple - how do I get a static IPv6 block so I can do all this if I want to on IPv6.
I get IPv4 is outdated, but how do I do some of this stuff in the fancy IPv6?
You are telling me IPv6 means I don't need any public static IPs and can use some private IPv6 space (10.x was already plenty for that for me in ipv4) with a dynamic public IPv6.
Fine, how does this work. Seriously, what VPN endpoint am I configuring? How does my VOIP / SIP play with this? Do I need to go back to poking weird holes in a NAT? My OWN experience was this all doesn't play well together. Firewalls seem not to play well with dynamic prefixes - and that's just the start. Devices pick up the wrong IP's internally (SIP etc).
In short - 20 years into this, when I try to do something simple -> stick my VoIP phone on a static public IP and VLAN -> its a total pain.
At a small biz, if I try and put a PBX on a static public IPv6 - it's a total pain (and BTW - the SIP IPv6 support in most hardware and softphones is terrible).
This should be the winning use case. Phone calls / person to person audio would benefit TREMENDOUSLY from direct peering connections without any NAT!
But despite an insane number if IPv6 addresses at least in the US they won't assign you a block of even 20.
The story isn't any different, there is nothing about IPv6 that changes this dynamic other than you have the additional option to use PD. What may be different is what your ISP requires you to do/purchase - by the sounds of it likely trying to push you to a business account which is a revenue tactic not a technology limitation.
As far as NAT with a dynamic IP to private v4 it works the same as NAT with an IPv4 connection with RFC 1918 space internally.
As for your performance issues with NAT you shouldn't see any latency with NAT on a network device, if you're using software routing on a Linux box or something try a standard hardware network device for the edge NAT instead as the data path for hardware devices is the exact same for NAT in those as it is for normal routing, in fact normal routing is normally just implemented a special case of NAT where the inside and outside addresses of the NAT are set to the same value. If you're currently using such a device for your edge NAT and experiencing problems with it either the device is broken or something is misconfigured as like I said everything is always "NATed" through such a device so it doesn't make any sense it'd have higher latency with certain internal IP values.
But seriously for home use without NAT look at PD, for business use with static routing and statically configured devices behind that routing look at what your ISP wants to sell you and see if you can call them on their crap but to be honest if you're running VOIP the business service is probably worth it anyways as you can get them to honor voice QOS through the oversubscribed local node into their backbone. If you go this route the IP space itself is the same as v4, you can either get it from your ISP or you can get it assigned to your LLC or whatever via your local RIR - literally anyone can get a /48 block assigned to them this way, maintenance fees for the allocation are the same as v4 but the RIRs actually have the space itself for free unlike v4 where you have to buy addresses and pay the maintenance fee.
You can tunnel if you want but I really wouldn't recommend it for VOIP. The same options you have for IPv4 VPNs are available for IPv6 and the setup is no different beyond the address type. There is also the option of teredo or 6rd but again I wouldn't really bother with them at this point in the game, they were intended for deploying v6 prior to its availability in ISPs not for this use case.
But the general idea is there is nothing about IPv6 that changes the way static addresses, static routing, or static allocation works beyond the size of the address field. That doesn't mean your ISP is choosing to give them to you at a reasonable price but it's not because of IPv6.
We hear that IPv6 has more IPs than people. Great. It should be easier, not harder, to get a block of these IPs.
ISPs don't want to hand out static blocks.
Static RIR allocations also poor and in some ways harder than it was to get IPv4 allocations early on (Have 13 end sites (offices, data centers, etc.) within one year or 2000 devices etc) or go to IPv6 multi-homing.
The limiting factor in some of this is not IP address quantity but routing complexity - I understand why they may want to limit things from that side, but it limits the utility of the space.
And all of it is harder to configure and operate for most folks. Sure, Google was maybe all in on IPv6 for google cloud from the start, but they have crazy money - and even for them I'm sure it was a pain and a big lift to offer that as a service to their GCP customers 15 years ago.
For the average person -> it's still not that good.
Note: I'm kidding about google and their rockstars delivering IPv6 early on. It was as painful for them with all their experts as everyone else - which tells you something.
One clear pain point, ISPs not giving out static IP's (v6). So what's point of huge space?
Att IPv4 info
https://www.att.com/support/article/u-verse-high-speed-inter...
Comcast Static is $25/month for 5 (business connection)
etc
The benefit and aim of the large space is that all devices can get unique public IPs not that all devices can get static public IPs. This prevents the need for cgnat on the carrier side which creates all sorts of problems and even prevents the need for complex NAT punching for user p2p such as games or real time communications. It also prevents the need for paying millions of dollars just to have IPs to serve one town due to scarcity from a small numeric field.
I'm not sure what is more difficult about getting a /48 from your RIR today than was getting a /16 in the early 90s, in each case you just register and say "I've got a business using IP" and are approved. I've never been denied, even for my personal LLC. I even had 0 pushback getting a /32 assigned for a large org I worked for 2 years ago - that's an entire IPv4 worth of /64 prefixes assigned without question or selling a kidney like on IPv4. I've also never had trouble registering dozens of businesses for static IPv6 blocks from their carriers for when they didn't want to manage the internet handoff.
For the average person they don't know what a vlan is or a static address or what IPv6 is for that matter, and they don't need to, which is what is so great about IPv6. For those that do know what VLANs are PD is great and comes out of the box on every ISP for $0 instead of paying them for more public addresses like in v4. For businesses static handoffs really are 0 difference to arrange from the old.
Google was amazing with the V6 efforts early on but GCP was God awful. In fact to this day it still requires dual stacking GCP VMs on the internal side otherwise everything breaks and you can't access GCP APIs via v6. Both Azure and AWS have been light years and decades ahead of GCP on the V6 front.
As for AT&T being a general money sucking PITA to deal with yes, they are generally recognized as the worst large ISP to deal with and will make you want to pull your hair out. They won't do it with U-verse they'll push you to ATT business fiber, charge an arm and a leg, and take 6 months to do it. Again though your beef is with ATT's business offerings not anything to do with IPv6, there is nothing stopping them from doing the same thing they do on consumer IPv4 connections they just choose not to.
So apparently it depends very much on the ISP. Some are doing a better job than others.
It would make a worthy challenge, the struggle would be legendary etc 8)
You just assign a ULA address to an interface and that's it. There is no "struggle."
If you wish to keep track, I believe this is where pfSense is working on this:
I won't hold my breath!
If some dodgy site gets a visitor from a Comcast netblock they would know that, should they ever de-anonymise the address, the John at the other end has zero plausible deniability to fall back on.
That being said, there’s no excuse for Comcast to at least give you the option of a static /48. I see that they themselves have a /20. That alone is enough for a /48 for each of 268 million customers (8x their current userbase) who would each be able to route 65k broadcast domains (/64 subjects.)
I've got a /60 with multiple VLAN's running without issues.
Comcast's IPv6 behavior varies depending on where you live.
Edit: This is for a business modem owned by Comcast, needed because of a static IP config.
Could be worse. The CenturyLink CPE I had would crash and reboot if a fragmented ipv6 packet touched it. The replacement didn't do that, but had some trigger that ended up with massive extra latency.