11 ms·

NAT was never intended to be so deeply ingrained in modern networking. It has overstayed its welcome.

• izacus 3y ago
  Only for people who have no skin in the game. The actual network operators are redeploying NAT even on IPv6 installations which tells you a lot about how disconnected from reality the IPv6 folks are. (But that was even shown when they were dreaming of deploying IPv6 without any kind of DHCP which had to be backtracked making a utter frigging mess of address assignment on networks with multiple competing approaches.)
  • orangeboats 3y ago
    >The actual network operators are redeploying NAT Who? And what constitutes "actual"? Are the netengs in FAANG actual network operators? Who aren't actual operators? Why they aren't?
    • izacus 3y ago
      Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT).
      • orangeboats 3y ago
        You are changing topic. Alas. >Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT). [Citation needed] I just tested with 2 cellular ISPs, and I was able to connect to the SSH service on my phone with either. (It's mostly useless though, since whenever the phone is locked the app is also suspended, causing the SSH service to be dropped)