[no-stegosaur]

Just imagine the world was used to subnets and NAT would be the new thing to learn. Everyone would go "NAT breaks all the time" and "portforwarding is weird" and whatnot. IPv6 is not harder, people just confuse "harder" with "not being used to".

[morshu9001]

NAT is actually useful besides just avoiding address exhaustion. Many IPv6 networks are on NAT anyway, like pretty much every cell carrier, which maybe accounts for most ipv6 traffic.

[toast0]

> like pretty much every cell carrier

TMo US gives me a whole routed /64. Why build and staff v6 NAT devices for no reason? At least several years ago several cell carriers were all about v6 to reduce the volume of v4 traffic they carry, because v4 requires expensive addresses, expensive nat boxes, and expensive people to feed and care for the NAT boxes.

[morshu9001]

Honestly, I don't know why so many carriers do v6 with NAT, cause intuitively they wouldn't. Maybe someone else knows. I know why a home or office would do it, it's easier to reason about there.

[Symbiote]

Can you give an example of an ISP doing IPv6 NAT?

[morshu9001]

AT&T

[Symbiote]

I can't see anything in their documentation about that, or anything on forums/Reddit.

Users ask about prefix delegation and advanced configurations, but all start from being allocated a /64.