4 ms·

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down.

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down. A few years ago, there was a mad push to have public IPv6 addresses because “soon” customers would be unable to reach your servers since they were only going to be given IPv6 addresses. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

okket 9y ago
See the slide "The Changing Internet"
lmm 9y ago
NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.
- ahbs66 9y ago
  >Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. It's 2018, nobody would be insane enough to try that
  - lmm 9y ago
    Maybe not the big names, but it's still happening. I have at least one new-in-2018 game that I had to do some port forwarding for (Heart of Crown).
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Ghost Recon Wildlands, a 2017 Game, uses P2P game lobbies. It's still very popular because it's cheaper; no expensive servers to run for customers and they can still play if you eventually shut down your services.
- toyg 9y ago
  Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little need for real addresses.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages? > The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little need for real addresses. Existing large businesses are happy with their current ways of doing things, sure. But those have never been the early adopters. IPv6 suits the startups (anyone who's working with containers hits problems from reusing the same subnets sooner or later) and it suits businesses that have to merge existing networks. No-one wants to be first, but there will come a point where the IPv4 costs are high enough to be worth doing something about.
    - ec109685 9y ago
      There are millions of private ipv4 addresses available. Can you talk about how subnet reuse becomes a problem?
      - Arnt 9y ago
        Too many people use 192.168.0/24 and 192.168.1/24 and eventually some of those networks need to be connected. You can only have so many of those in an organisation before it becomes a pain point. A conslutant friend told a story about a customer who had been through a few mergers and demergers. One nightly database dump there involved parts of one database being copied to another, both internal to the same company, through five layers of NAT. One of the routers had a 1500-line NAT configuration.

okket 9y ago

See the slide "The Changing Internet"

lmm 9y ago

NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.

ahbs66 9y ago
>Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. It's 2018, nobody would be insane enough to try that
- lmm 9y ago
  Maybe not the big names, but it's still happening. I have at least one new-in-2018 game that I had to do some port forwarding for (Heart of Crown).
- zaarn 9y ago
  Ghost Recon Wildlands, a 2017 Game, uses P2P game lobbies. It's still very popular because it's cheaper; no expensive servers to run for customers and they can still play if you eventually shut down your services.
toyg 9y ago
Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little need for real addresses.
- lmm 9y ago
  > Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages? > The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little need for real addresses. Existing large businesses are happy with their current ways of doing things, sure. But those have never been the early adopters. IPv6 suits the startups (anyone who's working with containers hits problems from reusing the same subnets sooner or later) and it suits businesses that have to merge existing networks. No-one wants to be first, but there will come a point where the IPv4 costs are high enough to be worth doing something about.
  - ec109685 9y ago
    There are millions of private ipv4 addresses available. Can you talk about how subnet reuse becomes a problem?
    - Arnt 9y ago
      Too many people use 192.168.0/24 and 192.168.1/24 and eventually some of those networks need to be connected. You can only have so many of those in an organisation before it becomes a pain point. A conslutant friend told a story about a customer who had been through a few mergers and demergers. One nightly database dump there involved parts of one database being copied to another, both internal to the same company, through five layers of NAT. One of the routers had a 1500-line NAT configuration.