3 ms·
I'm not sure I'd subscribe to that theory. The port forwarding issue is a few clicks; actually getting a site to host is another issue entirely. Even if it was
by btgeekboy 5y ago
I'm not sure I'd subscribe to that theory. The port forwarding issue is a few clicks; actually getting a site to host is another issue entirely. Even if it was some application you ran on your desktop 24/7 that holds your hand through the process, NAT + DHCP aren't insurmountable.
- brundolf 5y agoPort forwarding + static IP. And don't be so sure that it's trivial; despite having taken a course on the network stack I'd have to do some research to figure out port-forwarding and get it set up correctly. Normal people's response would be, "What's a port? Like the holes on the back of the computer?" In an IPv6 world you could have a free program you download that gives you an interface like Squarespace except you can host it for free on the very computer you're using to make your site. Could be totally accessible to nontechnical people. Same goes (much more powerfully) for distributed protocols like Matrix. You could have encrypted messaging platforms like Signal that don't even need a handshake server; devices talk exclusively to each other. Etc. It would be a radically different internet.
- generalizations 5y agoIs there any way to get there from where we are now? Seems like even with ipv6 we still have to use routers.
- brundolf 5y agoMy understanding is it would be hard/impossible to get everyone to IPv6 at this point because there will always be a long tail of devices that aren't there yet, and we can't just jettison those from the internet But yeah, I think even if everything magically changed to v6 overnight, we'd still be stuck with NAT to a large extent because so much is tangled up in it at this point. For one, it probably makes it easier for ISPs to bill their customers. Especially the dynamic-IP side of things.