[mightyham]

> Peer-to-peer communications such as gaming usually have to deal with NAT traversal, but with IPv6 this is no longer an issue, especially for multiple gamers using the same connection

You know the list of "benefits" is thin when the second item is entirely theoretical. Even though IPv6 doesn't have to do NAT traversal, it still has to punch through your router's firewall which is effectively the same problem. Most ISP provided home routers simply block all incoming IPv6 traffic unless there is outbound traffic first, and provide little to no support for custom IPv6 rules.

Even if that were not an issue, my bet is that there are close to zero popular games that actually use true peer to peer networking.

[justaboutanyone]

Punching through just a firewall is much easier than punching through a typical NAT+firewall setup

https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works

[whatevaa]

How do you punch trough firewalls? You have to manually open them, punching through firewall would be a firewall vulnerability.

[mightyham]

You're just asserting that without explination. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but afiak the only difference in NAT hole-punching is that clients don't know their public port mapping ahead of time. This actually doesn't make a huge difference to the process because in practice, you still want a central rendezvous server for automated peer IP discovery. The alternative being that each peer shares their IP with every other peer "offline", as in manually through an external service like IRC or discord, which is a horrible user experience.

[themafia]

> it still has to punch through your router's firewall

That's why most routers use a stateful firewall. Then nothing has to "punch through" it just has to be established from the local side.

> block all incoming IPv6 traffic unless there is outbound traffic first, and provide little to no support for custom IPv6 rules.

This is why STUN exists.

> my bet is that there are close to zero popular games that actually use true peer to peer networking.

For game state? You're probably right. For low latency voice chat? It's more common than you'd think.

[mightyham]

> it just has to be established from the local side

This is exactly the problem. Unless you expect users to manually share their IPs with every other user in a given lobby through an external service, you would need to make a central peer discovery and connection coordination mechanism which ends up looking pretty similar to classic NAT traversal.

[ruszki]

The complication starts when such an ephemeral port gets connection from somewhere else, which is the crucial part not the creation of such ports. That is not supported necessarily by firewalls, or not that simple than just having a stateful firewall.

[brigade]

Getting a streamer’s IP attracts DDoSes and doxxing, so yeah it’s generally considered a vulnerability to use P2P in games

[whatevaa]

Yeah, p2p is fine only with friends, people you know, otherwise it's like posting your private address for everybody to see.

[trashtensor]

Not having a congested CGNAT in the mix at 4pm every day is a nice benefit.

[Spivak]

Also NAT66 exists and I use it on my home network so you still have to have the machinery to do NAT traversal when needed. It's nice to use my public addresses like elastic IPs instead of delegating ports. IPv6 stans won't be able to bully their way into pretending that NAT doesn't exist on IPv6.