I know it's a joke, but the idea that NAT has any business existing makes me angry. It's a hack that causes real headaches for network admins and protocol design. The effects are mostly hidden from end users because those two groups have twisted things in knots to make sure end users don't notice too much. The Internet is more centralized and controlled because of it.

No, it is not a security feature. That's a laughable claim that shows you shouldn't be allowed near a firewall.

Fortunately, Google reports that IPv6 adoption is close to cracking 50%.

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (7 children)

You are right, but I wish ipv6 was less shitty of a replacement.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is something there, but mostly I think existing net admins try to map their existing IPv4 knowledge onto IPv6. That doesn't work very well. It needs to be treated as its own thing.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 9 points 22 hours ago

I couldn't figure it until I turned my brain off and just read the documentation. I was thinking in IPv4 logic, because everyone had told me it was just "bigger IPv4" - it's not. It's so much more, and better.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)