3 ms·

I've always seen "The Internet" as a network of networks. I interpreted the article as inferring that "every device should only speak internet, and we shouldn'

I've always seen "The Internet" as a network of networks. I interpreted the article as inferring that "every device should only speak internet, and we shouldn't have non-internet hacks to allow devices to connect to the internet." But, if we interpret the internet as a network built on top of other networks, it negates the thesis (as I interpret it) of the article. It also locks us into networking, as understood in the late 1990s, and designed into IPv6. IMO: It seems like IPv6 suffers from second system syndrome. The authors lost sight of the purpose "network built on top of other networks" and tried to add lots of features for the "other networks" that really aren't needed. Maybe it's time for IPv7? Really, all we need is IPv4 + larger address space. I'd even argue that NAT is a good thing (security feature,) because allowing devices on a private network to automatically open ports on the public internet is insecure.

hnarn 3y ago
> I'd even argue that NAT is a good thing (security feature,) Any router that I’ve come across already blocks incoming IPv6 traffic by default, so I’d have to disagree. NAT was designed for a very specific purpose and keeping it in a new implementation makes no sense if it’s not necessary, which it’s not if the hardware requires you to open incoming ports. No NAT would make it a lot easier to understand what’s happening too, since the process would be “allow traffic from the internet to this device” rather than creating a translation for an internal address, possibly having to set up a MAC reservation to ensure the DHCP lease doesn’t expire etc.