1 to 1 NAT66

[Abstain9194 0]

Request for the server to forward a /128 to the vpn client so that port forwarding is unneeded for IPv6, though there may be some concerns with it over hosting http content etc...

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

Port forwarding is currently in the process of being rewritten, to solve the port exhaustion problem "once and for all". Maybe this will address your problem, too, let's see what the future holds.

[ss11 15]

The downside of the VPN server forwarding a /128 public IPv6 address to the client is that the address will be unique, thus linked to that user permanently maybe, unlike now where the public IPv6 exit address is used by multiple users that share the same AirVPN server at the same time. I am not saying is a bad idea, I'm just saying it can make you more distinguishable - obviously this can be a problem in some use cases but not in others.

[Abstain9194 0]

15 hours ago, ss11 said:

The downside of the VPN server forwarding a /128 public IPv6 address to the client is that the address will be unique, thus linked to that user permanently maybe, unlike now where the public IPv6 exit address is used by multiple users that share the same AirVPN server at the same time. I am not saying is a bad idea, I'm just saying it can make you more distinguishable - obviously this can be a problem in some use cases but not in others.

This could be an optional item. There is the same risk with static port forwarding, so the /128 can be session unique or static or NAT depending on configuration on the device level within the website.