# Response: Peer-to-Peer Communication in IPv6 World

DevFeed: [Response: Peer-to-Peer Communication in IPv6 World](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/response-peer-to-peer-communication-in-ipv6-world-11173.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://blog.ipspace.net/2025/04/response-peer-to-peer-apps-ipv6/>)

Published: 2025-04-15T05:23:00Z

Content type: opinion

Language: en

Sources: [ipSpace.net blog](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/ipspace-net-blog.md>)

Topics: [P2P](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/p2p.md>), [Networks](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/networks.md>), [Firewall](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/firewall.md>), [WebRTC](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/webrtc.md>)

Tags: [firewall](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/firewall.md>), [firewalls](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/firewalls.md>), [ipv6](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/ipv6.md>), [nat](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/nat.md>), [p2p](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/p2p.md>), [webrtc](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/webrtc.md>)

## AI overview

This article presents Daryll Swer's response about peer-to-peer communication over IPv6. It argues that native IPv6 avoids shared-address NAT and related port-exhaustion issues, while stateful firewalls can still affect connectivity. The response reports successful STUN-based IPv6 peer connections in tested applications but notes that many CGNAT deployments remain problematic.

## Source excerpt

Daryll Swer posted a very informative response to my NAT Traversal Mess blog post, focusing on: Punching holes through that firewall is equivalent to establishing NAT translations. It would be a shame to let that response wither as small print at the bottom of a blog post; here it is: Read more ...