|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway2048
2147 days ago
|
|
|
NAT is fundamentally a limited technology that has massive scaling problems that simply do not exist in non-nat networking situations. The larger the network behind the NAT, the more problems you get. This is also before considerations like the fact NAT breaks 2 way connectivity that is the cornerstone of the design of the internet. >if ipv6 were so great, their fans wouldn't have to make up things to badmouth ipv4. The explicit goal and reason IPv6 was created was to make up for the short-comings of IPv4. |
|
|
The Internet of the 1990s was very different to the Internet of 2020. The widespread surveillance of activity as it exists today was not a consideration back then, nor were there the same security concerns, making it a desirable property to have every device uniquely and globally addressable.
Privacy extensions were then ratified (RFC 4941) after 2007 as a workaround, and firewalls get applied on hosts and gateways to protect against bad actors on the Internet (which are significantly more prevalent today than 20+ years ago).
IPv6 is not a magic bullet. The increase in addressable space is definitely a positive. Pretty much everything else is up for debate, depending on perspective and use case.
I've been dual-stacking networks for over a decade. The easy part[0] is making the network work with both IPv4 and IPv6. The hard part is making everything else work.
[0] Easy is relative. I agree with everything listed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24059729 as additional sources of complexity and confusion. That's still just the mole hill at the start of the mountain.