I was learning IPv6 in second year Network & Télécom, in 1997. We were running out of IPs back then.
Then we invented proxies and NAT and things got better and nature took its course (it ain't broke? Don't fucking touch it).

[–] dormedas@lemmy.dormedas.com 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sure, nature took its course, but did NATs make things better? I’m a game dev and getting two computers to talk to each other is so so much harder due to NAT traversal, requiring punchthrough servers. Voice chat and stuff need STUN/TURN servers. A game has to account for “what if my host wants to connect two clients, one of which within the NAT and one without?”

Makes far more sense to give every device an address and just talk to it and leave security and port openness up to firewalls.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

I have tried to code TCP hole punch through and aAaaaaaaAaaaAAAaaaa

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

getting two computers to talk to each other is so so much harder due to NAT traversal

... which is why you will take IPv4 on my home network from my cold, dead hands, and why all IPv6 traffic is blocked in the network that hosts my PC/laptop

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Thanks for holding us back, champ.

I guess fuck stateful packet inspection as a tool or anything.

NAT isn't a security measure you know that right?

[–] dormedas@lemmy.dormedas.com 7 points 2 weeks ago

So you admit you can block IPv6 traffic in your rebuke to IPv6 adoption. What’s then the issue? Block what you want, it’s your network, but do it with a firewall and not NAT.