3 ms·
What you're saying is similar to "there's limited amount of SWIFT codes", not enough for each person on earth, so each person cannot have their own bank to rece
by nlitened 2y ago
What you're saying is similar to "there's limited amount of SWIFT codes", not enough for each person on earth, so each person cannot have their own bank to receive money transfers.
True, but each person does not need to have their own bank to send or receive money, they can have an account within a bank of their preference, and use that extra information to route money transfers precisely.
"But they can't route money directly" — most people will never need to.
- josephg 2y agoYeah I hear the argument that CG-NAT is fine for most people. It’s true, but kinda sad. It means most people won’t be able to run home servers, or learn to be the server for a multiplayer video game, or all sorts of other things I took for granted when learning the craft. It kinda locks in, technically, the consumer and producer relationship between computers on the internet. And for no good technical reason - just a quirk of history. CGNAT is usable; but it’s sad.
- nlitened 2y agoI agree that it’s diverging from what was envisioned for the internet originally, so the thing doesn’t reach its technical potential. On the other hand, I find it beautiful that network routing architecture and network security architecture naturally converged on NATs — I think because they are easier to understand for people, and more closely reflect what’s actually happening, without some hidden magic.