4 ms·
Imo the insistence on 'no NAT' has killed IPv6, as it made talking to legacy IPv4 nodes very awkward. If it could interop well with v4, then the transition woul
by torginus 2mo ago
Imo the insistence on 'no NAT' has killed IPv6, as it made talking to legacy IPv4 nodes very awkward. If it could interop well with v4, then the transition wouldn't be all or nothing.
And it turns out the simplicity of 'no NAT' still buys you nothing. It's very common for modern systems to run multiple network interfaces with connections having to be juggled between them. In that case, connection and session management falls to a higher level protocol, often in the application.
- clhodapp 2mo agoHrm, but the insistence is more "NAT should not be a practical requirement in a pure IPv6 network", not "No NAT ever for any reason". NAT-based compatibility strategies are widely deployed in the real world (most cell carriers and Google's IPv6-mostly corporate network use NAT to allow communication with the IPv4 world from IPv6 only devices).
- Dagger2 2mo agoNAT is accepted for transition purposes; for example NAT64 makes it trivial to connect from v6-only clients to v4 servers, and is used by some large ISPs (e.g. T-Mobile in the US) to avoid running v4 inside their access network.