3 ms·
I think the point is that NAT is not necessary in IPv6, whereas it is in IPv4 due to address shortage. You can still have a firewall without NAT, btw.
by aflag 6y ago
I think the point is that NAT is not necessary in IPv6, whereas it is in IPv4 due to address shortage. You can still have a firewall without NAT, btw.
- magicalhippo 6y agoYes. What I'm trying to say is that I think embracing NAT would have been a better choice than the IPv6 we ended up with.
- aflag 6y agoYou can still use NATs with ipv6, there's just not many reasons too, no?
- magicalhippo 6y agoYeah that's like the worst of both worlds in a way.