4 ms·
> The whole point of v6 was no more NAT. But people like the NAT. I'd guess it's the only part of networking that gives people a warm and nice feeling; it appe
by otabdeveloper4 6y ago
> The whole point of v6 was no more NAT.
But people like the NAT. I'd guess it's the only part of networking that gives people a warm and nice feeling; it appeals to our senses of ownership and security.
- namibj 6y agoNo, they like the firewall. NAT is a thing that creates real problems, for example inhibiting low-latency video calls.
- iso1210 6y agoI run video with sub-100ms latency through multiple nats.
- Dagger2 6y agoHave a cookie. 100ms isn't that low, and those NATs are introducing additional latency and complexity that don't need to exist. If both sides are behind NAT then you may well need to relay the connection through a third party server, introducing even more cost, complexity and latency and involving an otherwise-unnecessary third party. "I managed to get something working" doesn't invalidate any of that.
- iso1210 6y ago100ms is very low for doing decent compression and decompression. Network latency added by natting is microseconds. Imagine I had a public IP - no natting involved. How would my video client tell my stateful firewall to allow a new incoming connection from the calling device?
- namibj 6y agoThe issue isn't the NAT itself, it's the inhibition of P2P connections (to a further extend, spontaneous queries for distributed routing technologies like seen in IPFS, but those are just preventing full decentralization). Once you have to bounce the data through a hosted proxy, you're forcing no less than 10 ms on to the users (of course there are rare exceptions for users really close to your proxy).
- jethro_tell 6y agoWat?