| ▲ | heinternets 3 hours ago | |||||||
Please can we do away with NAT forever. Why are we still encouraging this? It’s caused the world to do horrible kludges and continues to do so. | ||||||||
| ▲ | bilegeek 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
1.) IPv4 is still heavily favored over IPv6. 2.) Market segmentation: keeps home users from easily hosting their own services without spending $$$ on an upgraded plan. 3.) Adding on to #2, I've seen claims of providers putting IPv6 behind NAT, so don't think full IPv6 acceptance will solve this problem. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | unquietwiki 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
This shouldn't be mistaken for an anti-IPv6 post. There's also some steps you have to go through to enable IPv6 on your VPS networks, and there's still stuff like GitHub not handling IPv6. So, much as we need to migrate, we still have to support IPv4 connectivity for the foreseeable future. Shoutout to Hacker News for having IPv6 support! | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | MathMonkeyMan 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
I've worked at four tech companies and never saw a hint of IPv6 (except for some tests that verified that third-party networking code accepted that address family). Instead I played with IPv6 at home to make sure I understood it well enough should it ever come up at work. We'll see! | ||||||||
| ▲ | somanyphotons 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Presumably the idea is that if you go ipv6-only you can avoid this cost and just use a firewall? | ||||||||
| ▲ | bongodongobob an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Because it's never once inconvenienced the average network admin, probably. I still don't get what problem it's supposed to solve for me. | ||||||||