Regardless, ipv6 was to have more IP addresses because of ipv4 exhaustion and NAT?
My Xbox tells me my network sucks because it doesn't have ipv6, but this is a very North-American perspective regardless.
Nit: per RFC8064[0], most modern, non-server devices do/should configure their addresses with "semantically opaque interface identifiers"[1] rather than using their MAC address/EUI64. That stable address gets used for inbound traffic, and then outbound traffic can use temporary/privacy addresses that are randomized and change over time.
Statelessness is accomplished simply by virtue of devices self-assigning addresses using SLAAC, rather than some centralized configuration thing like DHCPv6.
[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8064/ [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7217/
Learning of RFCs is a pain lol. A random RFC8064 just appeared IMHO.
The terminology are bangers also: - semantically opaque interface identifiers - SLAAC, OUID and EUI64 - NAT64 / DNS64 - '6-in-4', '6-over-4' and '6-to-4' are different protocols - link local, ULA and GULA - DS Lite (the Nintendo?)
What even?
Pretty sure that it's complaining about lack of upnp. Which, yes, would not be an issue if we had ipv6... but ironically consoles typically have been slow to adopt ipv6 support themselves, so I'm curious if the xbox even supports it..
Steam having issues makes sense given its been around ages. Meta Quest is all new OS and code yet they managed to bork ipv6. Super annoying.
Xbox live has had it for years because ipv6 means no nat and lower latency. It’s been there since at least the 360.