3 ms·
I disagree. What problem does NAT solve, other than allowing people to cut corners and not deploy IPv6?
by Rjevski 9y ago
I disagree. What problem does NAT solve, other than allowing people to cut corners and not deploy IPv6?
- kingraoul3 9y agoWell, it allowed us to keep growing the internet before we had IPv6, for one thing.
- Rjevski 9y agoWasn't IPv6 already out before we ran out of IPv4 addresses? In which case NAT is just a kluge for the lazy who didn't want to deploy IPv6.
- wbl 9y agoYou might want to look at when IPv6 was designed. It's quite a bit older than you might think.
- sulam 9y agoDesigned is very different from available in any form. If I couldn't buy a router that supports it with any amount of money, NAT was my only answer. This was the existing state of the world for a long time.
- diamondlovesyou 9y agoOne can't control those that must deploy IPv6 first. That's the problem NAT solves. Developing NAT was likely not easy; consider how many implementations f it up anyway.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago> I disagree. What problem does NAT solve, other than allowing people to cut corners and not deploy IPv6? It by default ensures that machines inside a network are not reachable from the outside world. It gives you one address to the outside world which made IP blocks for abuse work quite well and enabled a lot of other users. Sure, it's a bit of a pain for UDP communication but given the common NAT behaviours not completely terrible. If it was defined a bit clearer NAT would not have been that controversial.
- StavrosK 9y agoSo does a firewall, in a much less complicated way.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y agoNATs are not terribly complex and most consumer grade firewalls are significantly worse than a simple NAT is.