588
Signal has been blocked by Venezuela and Russia
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
588 points (98.4% liked)
Privacy
32177 readers
618 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
IPv6 doesn't need CGNAT. So as long as it's capable of doing IPv6, it can directly communicate peer to peer using globally unique addresses. How do I know this? Simple because my ISP on IPv4 is completely CGNAT and I cannot get anything past it. So I am completely forced to use IPv6 for any service I want to run and access from outside my network.
Sure, but ipv6 is not widely adopted. I'm behind a CG-NAT but can't get an ipv6 so I have to operate a vps bridge to host my services. Some cell networks have ipv6 support but a few implement a NAT for it as well. AT&T only allows port 80 and 443.
Its not consistent enough to be useful without a centralized relay.
I think that really depends on where you are. Here in the US, for example, IPv6 is pretty darn well adopted. And even 45% of Google's internet traffic is done over IPv6.
Sure but if your looking to use a chat service, 45% is not a high enough watermark to have reliability. Its so contingent on the network operator to allow for an IPV6 connection. And like I said, places like AT&T have a NAT on their IPV6 network.
True, the only other option is something like simplex through tor. There are also p2p options like meshtastic as well.
Non ipv6 parts of the internet are considered derelict at at this point.
And... That doesn't change the fact it's not widely adopted enough for peer2peer chat services without the need of a relay.