You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, AutoNAT considers the node to be in the public state as long as one address can be dialed successfully, but it does not differentiate between address types.
For example, when the IPv6 address of node A is Public but the IPv4 address is private, node A will think that its network is ReachabilityPublic. The ReachabilityPublic state will prevent node A from connecting to Relay. However, when another node is in an IPv4-only network environment, it will be unable to connect to node A because there is no Relay connection.
Is it possible to consider subdividing the node Network Reachability into ReachabilityIPv4Public, ReachabilityIPv6Public and ReachabilityPublic (including IPv4 and IPv6)? I think more detailed address visibility differentiation will allow developers to formulate strategies in more detail.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, AutoNAT considers the node to be in the public state as long as one address can be dialed successfully, but it does not differentiate between address types.
For example, when the IPv6 address of node A is Public but the IPv4 address is private, node A will think that its network is ReachabilityPublic. The ReachabilityPublic state will prevent node A from connecting to Relay. However, when another node is in an IPv4-only network environment, it will be unable to connect to node A because there is no Relay connection.
Is it possible to consider subdividing the node Network Reachability into ReachabilityIPv4Public, ReachabilityIPv6Public and ReachabilityPublic (including IPv4 and IPv6)? I think more detailed address visibility differentiation will allow developers to formulate strategies in more detail.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: