4 ms·

Why does it make you sad and angry? It sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm especially happy that we went for human readable names rather than wierd letter/number

by erikb 8y ago

Why does it make you sad and angry? It sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm especially happy that we went for human readable names rather than wierd letter/number combinations. Also nobody seems to know when to use these [] brackets around the addresses, and they are even hard to type for people who don't use the US keyboard layout. Last but not least NAT is not just a IP-range splitter but also a security feature. I literally don't see a single thing to be sad about. Angry is even a little harder and honestly a little surprising.

Uh7seidu 8y ago
The end-to-end principle where any node on the internet can talk to any other one. This allows anyone to start a service and services (and people) talk to each other without intermediaries. It levels the playing field. Losing that concentrates power and takes options from individuals.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Yep. CG-NAT puts all the power on your ISP. You want VOIP, sorry your double nat'ed connection messes up about half the time, you better by telephone service with us instead.
- erikb 8y ago
  How so? It's just a way of representation. The power is still with the ISPs, backbone providers and governments. Power would only flow to the end user if the communication technology itself would enable him direct 1:1 communication to everybody else. E.g. if everybody uses IPv6 China can still block you when you are located in their network. Not a single grain more power to you.
phyzome 8y ago
Perhaps you don't remember the days when every computer on the internet was an equal peer. To be honest, I don't quite remember it either; I only caught the very tail end. But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers, and the internet is a sort-of-bipartite graph with two classes of citizens: The home clients, and the corporate servers.
- Uh7seidu 8y ago
  Even multiplayer games were played by directly connecting to game servers that could be operated by anyone, no company-hosted clouds that will shut down after a few years.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers You still can, and you really don't have to host with a big provider if you don't want to. The only reason we hear about it so much is because all the engineering articles come from people who work at companies with insanely high scaling requirements. If you want to throw up an XAMPP server at home you still can, though you'll need to acquire either a static IP or a dynamic DNS record to point people to.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    > though you'll need to acquire either a static IP or a dynamic DNS record That's the whole point. With some ISPs using CG-NAT, you don't have a public IP. I have three computers at home running an SSH server. Two have to be on non-default ports, since I only have one IP.
  - phyzome 8y ago
    And in fact I run a Jabber server off my home IP. But if my ISP catches me at it, they could point to the line in their contract saying "no servers" and demand that I turn it off. (Or just block it outright.) They probably won't, but still.

by erikb 8y ago

Uh7seidu 8y ago

The end-to-end principle where any node on the internet can talk to any other one. This allows anyone to start a service and services (and people) talk to each other without intermediaries. It levels the playing field. Losing that concentrates power and takes options from individuals.

pixl97 8y ago
Yep. CG-NAT puts all the power on your ISP. You want VOIP, sorry your double nat'ed connection messes up about half the time, you better by telephone service with us instead.
erikb 8y ago
How so? It's just a way of representation. The power is still with the ISPs, backbone providers and governments. Power would only flow to the end user if the communication technology itself would enable him direct 1:1 communication to everybody else. E.g. if everybody uses IPv6 China can still block you when you are located in their network. Not a single grain more power to you.

phyzome 8y ago

Perhaps you don't remember the days when every computer on the internet was an equal peer. To be honest, I don't quite remember it either; I only caught the very tail end. But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers, and the internet is a sort-of-bipartite graph with two classes of citizens: The home clients, and the corporate servers.

Uh7seidu 8y ago
Even multiplayer games were played by directly connecting to game servers that could be operated by anyone, no company-hosted clouds that will shut down after a few years.
beaconstudios 8y ago
> But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers You still can, and you really don't have to host with a big provider if you don't want to. The only reason we hear about it so much is because all the engineering articles come from people who work at companies with insanely high scaling requirements. If you want to throw up an XAMPP server at home you still can, though you'll need to acquire either a static IP or a dynamic DNS record to point people to.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  > though you'll need to acquire either a static IP or a dynamic DNS record That's the whole point. With some ISPs using CG-NAT, you don't have a public IP. I have three computers at home running an SSH server. Two have to be on non-default ports, since I only have one IP.
- phyzome 8y ago
  And in fact I run a Jabber server off my home IP. But if my ISP catches me at it, they could point to the line in their contract saying "no servers" and demand that I turn it off. (Or just block it outright.) They probably won't, but still.