4 ms·

> What problems would occur if we were just nat-ing everyone behind those 4 billion IPv4 addresses? Because we're running out of IPs even with NAT, so entire I

> What problems would occur if we were just nat-ing everyone behind those 4 billion IPv4 addresses? Because we're running out of IPs even with NAT, so entire ISPs have to implement it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT There are entire swaths of IPv4 addresses (100.64.0.0/10) reserved just for ISPs to assign to their customers' WAN interface which will not interfere with the RFC 1918 addresses people use on their home networks: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598 We're doing NAT-upon-NAT. Good luck doing hole punching on your personal firewall to allow connections in for games or VoIP.

Gigachad 5y ago
The easiest and most reliable way to expose a computer on the internet now is those services which work something like a VPN where they have an ip address and route everything sent to it over to you via WireGuard or similar. That way you don't have to worry about dynamic addresses, ISP blocked ports, buggy router firmware. It all just works. Things like ngrok can do it really easily for http traffic.
- lmm 5y ago
  > The easiest and most reliable way to expose a computer on the internet now is those services which work something like a VPN where they have an ip address and route everything sent to it over to you via WireGuard or similar. Right, but that only works if the other end has an address, and they're increasingly scarce/expensive.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > […] something like a VPN where they have an ip address and route everything sent to it over to you via WireGuard or similar. You can implement one of those kludges. Or you can make the effort to restore the end-to-end principal originally envisioned for the Internet. I'd prefer if people try to work towards the latter over the long term.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    You can prefer it but it will never happen. Most home ISPs have some kind of restrictions on incoming connections and the majority of home routers have buggy or incomplete firmware which make hosting at home difficult. The benefit of the VPN option is that it requires cooperation from no one and rips right through all the obstructions the ISP and routers put in the way. People hosting at home are an extreme minority so there is basically no chance we will go back to when every single computer was directly connectable.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> We're doing NAT-upon-NAT Perhaps, much like many of the other standards we've settled on despite the existence of technically superior alternatives, this solution is good-enough, and it was easier to implement, and it was here first. Sort of like how we still use UNIX instead of Inferno.

Gigachad 5y ago

The easiest and most reliable way to expose a computer on the internet now is those services which work something like a VPN where they have an ip address and route everything sent to it over to you via WireGuard or similar. That way you don't have to worry about dynamic addresses, ISP blocked ports, buggy router firmware. It all just works. Things like ngrok can do it really easily for http traffic.

lmm 5y ago
> The easiest and most reliable way to expose a computer on the internet now is those services which work something like a VPN where they have an ip address and route everything sent to it over to you via WireGuard or similar. Right, but that only works if the other end has an address, and they're increasingly scarce/expensive.
throw0101a 5y ago
> […] something like a VPN where they have an ip address and route everything sent to it over to you via WireGuard or similar. You can implement one of those kludges. Or you can make the effort to restore the end-to-end principal originally envisioned for the Internet. I'd prefer if people try to work towards the latter over the long term.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  You can prefer it but it will never happen. Most home ISPs have some kind of restrictions on incoming connections and the majority of home routers have buggy or incomplete firmware which make hosting at home difficult. The benefit of the VPN option is that it requires cooperation from no one and rips right through all the obstructions the ISP and routers put in the way. People hosting at home are an extreme minority so there is basically no chance we will go back to when every single computer was directly connectable.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> We're doing NAT-upon-NAT Perhaps, much like many of the other standards we've settled on despite the existence of technically superior alternatives, this solution is good-enough, and it was easier to implement, and it was here first. Sort of like how we still use UNIX instead of Inferno.