3 ms·
Since every IPv6 discussion on HN has to repeat this misunderstanding, I'll just link to what I posted last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39997078
by Arnavion 3y ago
Since every IPv6 discussion on HN has to repeat this misunderstanding, I'll just link to what I posted last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39997078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39997078
- JohnFen 3y agoWhat misunderstanding? I am familiar with what you wrote, and am not disagreeing. There is nuance here that seems to get lost whenever this topic comes up.
- Arnavion 3y agoThe misunderstanding that "I don't want any random machines behind my router to be able to open ports to the internet at large. I want a single point of presence that handles that and forwards to whichever machine I want to handle that traffic." is something that happens with v4 and not with v6, or that it has anything at all to do with NAT.
- JohnFen 3y agoI wasn't suffering under that misunderstanding. I was just saying what my personal preference is for managing such a setup.