Scoopta

LOL, I also use DNS based filtering soooo I feel your pain.

There's lots of newspaper sites in the US, that do this. They'll be like "wanna use private browsing, make an account, or go visit from normal browsing." Idk why they do it but they do. Apparently there are discrepancies in the way browsers handle persistent storage features between private and non-private browsing that allow for detection

I refuse to go to sites that do this, I also refuse to go to sites that block adblock...and specially the sites that detect and block private browsing, that one shouldn't even be a thing

Doesn't change the fact that it's not illegal in a lot of countries because it's drawn art and not abuse which is the A in CSAM. That instance is in the Netherlands where I believe Loli is legal for the reasons I've mentioned...anyway the point of my bluring comment was you could blur it...which is on the client level so you don't have to see it in order to block it. I wasn't suggesting the blur as a permanent fix. Also if you're that worried about browser cache just use private browsing or something so the cache is immediately wiped afterwards...but whatever. Also mere fact that you know what's on the instance means you must have seen something by accident...so it's already in your browser cache so that's a moot point anyway.

Loli isn't CSAM...in a lot of countries it's completely legal. Also do you not have the NSFW blur option enabled? Then you don't have to see anything when you go there to block it.

Discussions like this always bring me back to one thing...can a word itself be racist? Is it racist to use a word if it's not being said with racist intent? It's reminiscent of the gimp debacle...if a words use isn't intended to offend it's honestly beyond me how anyone could find it offensive. Are we supposed to ban every single word that has the slightest history of being used in an offensive fashion? Feel like we'd have a really long list if we did that.

This is the opposite of what OP is asking. He's wanting internal IPv4 with external IPv6, NAT64 provides the opposite.

It's the proprietary driver GPU experience. All the proprietary drivers can leave you hanging like this

You'd need some special hardware with a large enough MTU to handle that. While IP itself can most hardware can't

IMO if you have to put "you can't do xyz with IPv6" in your documentation...then you need to not ship that product...but Comcast is Comcast...sooo

IMO if you're serious about IPv6 you should probably have your own router running OpenWRT or the like. That's not to say consumer routers don't exist with good v6 support. AT&T provided routers have very good v6 support including full firewall rules for both v4 and v6 on top of the v4 port forwarding for NAT. We'll ignore their PD issues lol. Sounds like Xfinity might just be behind the times. I'd put OpenWRT on a router and use that instead of the ISP router anyway.

I believe OP is already aware of this. At least based on the wording in his post. He specifically says "opening ports in the IPv6 firewall." Could be mistaken though.