4 ms·
> NAT is perfectly fine […] The length of Tailscale's 2020 weblog post "How NAT traversal works": * https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works https:/
by throw0101a 29d ago
> NAT is perfectly fine […]
The length of Tailscale's 2020 weblog post "How NAT traversal works":
* https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works
and their 2025 "NAT traversal, and how we're improving it (pt. 1)"
* https://tailscale.com/blog/nat-traversal-improvements-pt-1 https://tailscale.com/blog/nat-traversal-improvements-pt-1
indicates the opposite to me.
Certainly there are still (SPI) firewalls with IPv6, but at least with CPEs things are limited to 'only' hole punching with PCP (or UPnP) as opposed to all the ICE/TURN/STUN layers (and heaven help you if you're behind CG-NAT).
> The problem is, and has always been, that NAT doesn't solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem.
NAT was intended to be a "short-term solution" as noted in the NAT RFC (from 1994):
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1631 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1631