Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

Aloisius an hour ago

Pretty sure NAT was standardized before IPv6.

NAT is RFC 1631.

IPv6 is RFC 1883.

Admitted, that was very basic NAT.

▲

sgjohnson an hour ago | parent [-]

RFC 1631 is a memo, not a standard.

Actually, my bad. NAT was NEVER standardized. Not only NAT was never standardized, it’s never even been on standards track. RFC 3022 is also just “Informational”

Plus, RFC 1918 doesn’t even mention NAT

So yes, NAT is a bug in history that has no right to exist. The people who invented it clearly never stopped to think on whether they should, so here we are 30 years later.

	▲	Aloisius 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That doesn't really say much. Basic NAT wasn't eligible to be on the standards track. It's not a protocol or anything that implementers need to specifically interoperate on. Same reason firewalls are in informational or BCP RFCs. There are proposed standards for specific protocols related to NAT like FTP extensions for NAT (RFC 2428) or STUN (RFC 3489) and it's referenced in various BCP RFCS like RFC 4787.
	▲	yrro 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If only the inventors of NAT had patented it and then refused to license it!