-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2016-09-11 a las 09:30 -0400, Greg Freemyer escribió:
El 2016-09-10 a las 11:08 -0400, James Knott escribió:
But I'm not going to try unless I need to connect to an IPv6 only site. I see no reason to.
Carlos,
I don't know about a "reason", but I will say I've invested a lot of time over the years working around NAT.
Lets's say 80 hours total over the last decade. I have a general sense because of all the hassles with autossh I've had over the years. I even wrote a blog post about how to do it.
I'm aware of the problems NAT causes, but it is not my case. I very rarely need to connect to home, and in that case I can just use port forwarding on the ISP router.
(My ISP does not allow me to setup port forwarding rules in their edge router. They own it and don't provide a login. This is the 3rd time/site I've been blocked by that ISP policy.)
Too bad of them :-( I wonder how gamers manage in your district.
I'm a IPv6 neophyte, but it seems IPv6 is a better investment of my time going forward than learning/configuring NAT workarounds.
But you are telling me to expend time, and perhaps money, setting up an IPv6 tunnel which I do not need. At least now :-) And then, suppose I run a download of an openSUSE DVD. Suppose it tries to go inside that tunnel, because I get an IPv6 address for that download site. Will it run at 300 mbps that my internet connection allows? I doubt it will, for free. Somebody has got to pay that pipe. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlfVYx0ACgkQja8UbcUWM1xKKQD/S2DbHB8voKtWA6qRa02yutaE 9mtrE6JbSXa6v8RVGOkA/irA+mLotfVHJmUvy4zaj99Onc5ZsuVjHoY+zMGARpVK =Jik9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----