4

My ISP has now put me behind NAT. I no longer get a Public IP assigned to me. Earlier with Public IP I was able to seamlessly do remote desktop to my PC from the internet.

Now my Internet Setup is something like…

A dynamic Public IP at ISP end, a Dynamic Private IP assigned to my router (Dlink DIR 615) or my desktop PC (Windows 7) whichever I connect to ISP’s LAN cable.

A private IP now prevents inbound access.

If I register for IPv6 thru IPv4 Tunnel Broker and configure my PC as per their inputs (I am still learning about IPv6 thru IPv4) will I be able to make an inbound RDP connection over the internet to my Windows 7 PC that is now behind ISP’s NAT where I get Dynamic Private IP and ISP has its Dynamic Public IP?

In case it’s possible, what are the other considerations or enablers for making it happen e,g, does it need any specific ports to be opened by ISP?

Dlink DIR router also has relevant options therein to setup IPv6 in IPv4.

Thanks.

7
  • Does the other end also have ipv6 support?
    – Journeyman Geek
    Apr 5, 2017 at 6:00
  • 1
    superuser.com/questions/524293/… is useful. I've used gogo6 for this in the past but they're defunct
    – Journeyman Geek
    Apr 5, 2017 at 6:10
  • By Other end, do you mean the initiating end? I will be using my Windows 7 Laptop (WiFi adapter supports IPv6) to initiate RDP. I will be using mobile internet that will again assign a Private IPv4 to my mobile and I will create a personal hotspot. There will be Link Local IPv6 on laptop.
    – mmp
    Apr 5, 2017 at 6:30
  • I don't think link local addresses are good enough. I might be wrong though.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Apr 5, 2017 at 6:32
  • As of now I can seamlessly RDP on LAN between my Laptop & Desktop using Link Local IPv6. However I have no idea how it works over the Internet and if my above assumption about IPv6 in IPv4 is correct and if it needs Public Internet IPv6 at both ends.
    – mmp
    Apr 5, 2017 at 6:37

1 Answer 1

3

Yes, but only if you can get the tunnel set up in the first place.

Out of the remaining IPv6 tunnel providers, both HE (Tunnelbroker) and NetAssist only offer raw 6in4 which does not work that well with NATs. While 6in4 can work behind residential NAT, it is going to be very unreliable behind CGNAT, as (unlike UDP or GRE) it's a raw IP-IP tunnel and the ISP's NAT boxes would be unable to distinguish between different people's tunnels.

If you have a few dollars a month to spare, you could rent a server from a VPS hosting company and set up a personal tunnel using a more convenient protocol (e.g. using OpenVPN or ZeroTier). That way you'll get IPv6 and a dedicated public IPv4 address, with ability to port-forward stuff.

Some commercial VPN providers (the kind which lets you connect to the internet) also offer a public IP address and allow incoming connections. (Though usually they only support IPv4 and deliberately block IPv6.)

5
  • Thank you for sharing your inputs. I tried Tunnelbroker but I could not setup tunnel as I have no control over Public IP now. As a first stage, their setup tried to ping ICMP the public IP and since ISP has blocked it, it failed. So could not setup anything further. Still I don’t know how it would have redirected the request to my private IP otherwise.
    – mmp
    Apr 5, 2017 at 12:42
  • @mmp Netassist doesn't have the silly ping test which HE does. But it is still unlikely to get it working through a CGN.
    – kasperd
    Apr 17, 2017 at 12:53
  • When choosing a VPS you need to make sure you choose one which will give you a routed prefix (/64 or shorter). Some VPS providers will only give you a /64 link prefix, in some cases it is not even a dedicated link prefix but rather one shared with other customers.
    – kasperd
    Apr 17, 2017 at 13:00
  • @kasperd: It's not silly. If you can't get something as simple as ICMP pings working (even have the router itself reply to them), then an IPIP tunnel is even more unlikely. Apr 17, 2017 at 14:34
  • @grawity I have been on at least one network where I had to use Netassist because of that requirement. A 6in4 tunnel worked perfectly fine on that network, but because the network dropped ICMP packets, I could only use Netassist. Besides even if something responds to ICMP echo requests, there is no guarantee that thing will allow 6in4 to work. So the risk of false positives and the risk of false negatives are both so high, that testing for ICMP is pointless. Testing ICMPv6 echo requests inside of 6in4 would OTOH make sense, but I don't know if any 6in4 provider does that.
    – kasperd
    Apr 17, 2017 at 18:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .