3 ms·
It's not that it will be disastrous. It's that it already is disastrous right now. The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been
by Hizonner 3y ago
It's not that it will be disastrous. It's that it already is disastrous right now.
The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been for all of those "at least 15 years". The network can't deliver its most basic function, which is to let any node talk to any other node at will.
As a result, the designs of huge numbers of higher-layer protocols have been warped and complicated, and the whole thing has contributed to the whole maelstrom of extreme commercial centralization pressures, too.
Everybody who wasn't willing to hard cut over to IPv6 should have been forced off of the Internet 20 years ago.
- wyager 3y agoThe problem is that there are way fewer than 4 billion people who actually have anything worth connecting to their node for. 99% of internet users are strictly consumers, and a protocol change won't do anything about that. For them, there's little difference.
- themoonisachees 3y agoThis is patently false. They don't host services, sure, but the current landscape has all but shaped application design into assuming at least one party will be behind a NAT, which heavily centralizes traffic because it becomes impossible to make truly decentralized apps. Take a small look at the TURN and STUN, things that would have no business existing if all nodes could have an address. There are very valid reasons to want to send traffic to a node so called "out of the blue", and suggesting otherwise suggests you have never looked deeper than HTTP.
- blueflow 3y agoVideo conferencing and online games. A pretty big market.