2 ms·
Yeah 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 t
by josephg 2y ago
Yeah 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.