5 ms·

Trouble is that NAT solved a huge chunk of the problem. The current setup is not quite painful enough for people to want to fix it. The good is the enemy of the

by beobab 8y ago

Trouble is that NAT solved a huge chunk of the problem. The current setup is not quite painful enough for people to want to fix it. The good is the enemy of the great, as it were.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
AKA "worse is better", biting us in the arse once again.
pdkl95 8y ago
> not quite painful enough NAT was (and is) destructive and painful that some of us gave up writing network software in the late-90s/early-00s. I personally abandoned several network-focused projects in the early 2000s. The current status quo only seems "not quite painful enough" if you accept that most people cannot use true network software, limited to client-server architecture where party lines[1] communicate with each other only with the permission of central privileged imprimatur[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_%28telephony%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_%28telephony%29 [2] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
- PeterisP 8y ago
  "if you accept..." I mean, isn't that a very reasonable assumption? Do you really disagree with the notion that more than half of global population don't care at all about the ability to "use true network software", wouldn't use it if they could, and, as long as they're not restricted too much, knowingly avoid solutions with more freedom and actually prefer centralized solutions as long as they're even just a bit more convenient? Heck, if we don't listen at what people are claiming and look at their actions, then even in the techie crowd the majority aren't ready to sacrifice minor conveniences to choose decentralized models over a client-server run and entirely controlled by someone else.
ozim 8y ago
Also I do not need to have directly accesible stuff on my home network. I can use dropbox or buy cheap VPS if I want to keep my data in sync. One is security, NAT is nice for that a lot smaller attack surface. Second keeping your stuff always running at home is unreliable and annoying. Would be nice if I would not have to pay for VPS but $5 a month cheapest linode is more than enough for my hobby projects.
- z3t4 8y ago
  ipv6 solve the problem of one ip per device, with ipv6 you can have both local and public IP's on the same interface! Then your app's and services can choose whether they like to listen on local or public IP's. Without NAT you can do so much more stuff, like peer-to-peer (p2p) networking. Yes, you can do p2p with ipv4 behind NAT but it's super complicated and brittle. Also bypassing the NAT is complicated, you have to fiddle with the router settings, and often you have to call your ISP to give you a public IP. This makes it hard or impossible to sell "Internet of things" (IoT) devices to regular people as you can't just plug them in. Networks today are very good with high bandwidth and low latency, which enables some interesting use cases, for example virtual reality (VR) where you just have a thin client plugged in to the network and then have all the compute power located in a data-center a few miles away, with sub ms latency. Another usecase is apps with service like functionality, like decentralized Facebook, and chat messengers.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Also I do not need to have directly accesible stuff on my home network. I can use dropbox or buy cheap VPS if I want to keep my data in sync. You also can walk everywhere instead of using machines to move around ... but why would you? > One is security, NAT is nice for that a lot smaller attack surface. No, it doesn't. It's a common myth, but NAT does not provide any security, it only hides insecurity. > Second keeping your stuff always running at home is unreliable and annoying. Complete non-sequitur?
  - ozim 8y ago
    Do you have redundant power supply at home, redundant internet connection? Keeping your own server up and running at home is unreliable and annoying. Having animals, kids, makes it even more difficult. If I would have to rely on it beeing up while I am abroad, I would rather pay for VPS. Hiding insecurity is perfectly valid. It is making attack surface smaller. I do not get pings of death, constant scanning, login attempts all the time on my local machine which is always behind NAT. Every server that has public IP gets scanned or tried out with vulnerabilities. I can connect totally new PC to router with NAT and not be owned in matters of minutes by some botnet. My router might be exposed but it is something I know. All machines behind router are perfectly fine for remote vulnerabilities.
takeda 8y ago
Interrent would be very different (better) today if not for NAT. NAT restricts what is possible to do over network for example we only use TCP and UDP protocols, because those protocols are supported by most devices. Similarly we have very minimal number of peer to peer applications. P2P currently is mostly popular with piracy, but it could be beneficial for other uses. NAT + asymmetric speeds (which started because of DSL, but ISPs decided to keep things that way even though it is no longer necessary) are responsible that's why we haven't a lot of services that are centralized. IPv6 has chance to fix this and I am so glad NAT wasn't included in its design.
jjrh 8y ago
> Trouble is that NAT solved a huge chunk of the problem. Well it solved the roof collapsing, but the problem is it makes innovation difficult and straight up impossible in some cases.
gsich 8y ago
NAT is the problem. If you are behind a CGNAT, then you effectively can't use the Internet properly.

by beobab 8y ago

Trouble is that NAT solved a huge chunk of the problem. The current setup is not quite painful enough for people to want to fix it. The good is the enemy of the great, as it were.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

AKA "worse is better", biting us in the arse once again.

pdkl95 8y ago

> not quite painful enough NAT was (and is) destructive and painful that some of us gave up writing network software in the late-90s/early-00s. I personally abandoned several network-focused projects in the early 2000s. The current status quo only seems "not quite painful enough" if you accept that most people cannot use true network software, limited to client-server architecture where party lines[1] communicate with each other only with the permission of central privileged imprimatur[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_%28telephony%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_%28telephony%29 [2] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

PeterisP 8y ago
"if you accept..." I mean, isn't that a very reasonable assumption? Do you really disagree with the notion that more than half of global population don't care at all about the ability to "use true network software", wouldn't use it if they could, and, as long as they're not restricted too much, knowingly avoid solutions with more freedom and actually prefer centralized solutions as long as they're even just a bit more convenient? Heck, if we don't listen at what people are claiming and look at their actions, then even in the techie crowd the majority aren't ready to sacrifice minor conveniences to choose decentralized models over a client-server run and entirely controlled by someone else.

ozim 8y ago

Also I do not need to have directly accesible stuff on my home network. I can use dropbox or buy cheap VPS if I want to keep my data in sync. One is security, NAT is nice for that a lot smaller attack surface. Second keeping your stuff always running at home is unreliable and annoying. Would be nice if I would not have to pay for VPS but $5 a month cheapest linode is more than enough for my hobby projects.

z3t4 8y ago
ipv6 solve the problem of one ip per device, with ipv6 you can have both local and public IP's on the same interface! Then your app's and services can choose whether they like to listen on local or public IP's. Without NAT you can do so much more stuff, like peer-to-peer (p2p) networking. Yes, you can do p2p with ipv4 behind NAT but it's super complicated and brittle. Also bypassing the NAT is complicated, you have to fiddle with the router settings, and often you have to call your ISP to give you a public IP. This makes it hard or impossible to sell "Internet of things" (IoT) devices to regular people as you can't just plug them in. Networks today are very good with high bandwidth and low latency, which enables some interesting use cases, for example virtual reality (VR) where you just have a thin client plugged in to the network and then have all the compute power located in a data-center a few miles away, with sub ms latency. Another usecase is apps with service like functionality, like decentralized Facebook, and chat messengers.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Also I do not need to have directly accesible stuff on my home network. I can use dropbox or buy cheap VPS if I want to keep my data in sync. You also can walk everywhere instead of using machines to move around ... but why would you? > One is security, NAT is nice for that a lot smaller attack surface. No, it doesn't. It's a common myth, but NAT does not provide any security, it only hides insecurity. > Second keeping your stuff always running at home is unreliable and annoying. Complete non-sequitur?
- ozim 8y ago
  Do you have redundant power supply at home, redundant internet connection? Keeping your own server up and running at home is unreliable and annoying. Having animals, kids, makes it even more difficult. If I would have to rely on it beeing up while I am abroad, I would rather pay for VPS. Hiding insecurity is perfectly valid. It is making attack surface smaller. I do not get pings of death, constant scanning, login attempts all the time on my local machine which is always behind NAT. Every server that has public IP gets scanned or tried out with vulnerabilities. I can connect totally new PC to router with NAT and not be owned in matters of minutes by some botnet. My router might be exposed but it is something I know. All machines behind router are perfectly fine for remote vulnerabilities.

takeda 8y ago

Interrent would be very different (better) today if not for NAT. NAT restricts what is possible to do over network for example we only use TCP and UDP protocols, because those protocols are supported by most devices. Similarly we have very minimal number of peer to peer applications. P2P currently is mostly popular with piracy, but it could be beneficial for other uses. NAT + asymmetric speeds (which started because of DSL, but ISPs decided to keep things that way even though it is no longer necessary) are responsible that's why we haven't a lot of services that are centralized. IPv6 has chance to fix this and I am so glad NAT wasn't included in its design.

jjrh 8y ago

> Trouble is that NAT solved a huge chunk of the problem. Well it solved the roof collapsing, but the problem is it makes innovation difficult and straight up impossible in some cases.

gsich 8y ago

NAT is the problem. If you are behind a CGNAT, then you effectively can't use the Internet properly.