6 ms·
Yes, NAT was a mistake.
by RiverCrochet 3y ago
Yes, NAT was a mistake.
- sambazi 3y agothat or it was an inevitable and powerful scaling technology that enables a double-digit billion number of devices to communicate using only 3B addresses
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoSo is IPv6.
- sambazi 3y agounquestionably
- orangeboats 3y agoScaling and NAT shouldn't be put together.
- sambazi 3y agoyet here we are
- throw0101c 3y agoYes, here we are, spending many, many thousands of dollars unnecessary: > I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house. > Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic. > We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices. […] * https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s-2022-and-still-no-IPv6/m-p/854673/highlight/true#M35732 https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
- pif 3y agoWe may discuss the past, if you wish, but the present is what matters. And, today, NAT is, and IPv6 is not.
- orangeboats 3y agoActually, IPv6 is! Just that you are not using it doesn't mean half of the internet isn't using IPv6 right now.
- izacus 3y agoIPv6 behind an equivalence of NAT is. :D
- themoonisachees 3y agoYou seem to be conflating a stateful firewall with a NAT. Unless you really need to, you're never doing NAT on ipv6.
- izacus 3y agoNo, we're not doing NAT, but the devices aren't really accessible from the wide web either. In this case "NAT" is just an implementation detail and getting rid of it didn't bring any of the benefits IPv6 promised.
- throw0101c 3y ago> No, we're not doing NAT, but the devices aren't really accessible from the wide web either. Which is a policy issue (implemented through rules on a firewall), and not an inherent limitation of the technology (like NAT is).
- RiverCrochet 3y agoLolwut? Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Addresses: 2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8b 2607:f8b0:4002:c00::66 2607:f8b0:4002:c00::65 2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8a 74.125.136.100 74.125.136.138 74.125.136.101 74.125.136.113 74.125.136.102 74.125.136.139