From the conclusion:

NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only implementation and experimentation will determine its appropriateness.

  • qprimed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    there is no fix more permanent than a temporary one.

    edit: as I literally sit here inspecting the nat tables on a couple of edge routers.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Last week I was peer pressured into trying out Helldivers 2 (yes, this is relevant, trust me), so I downloaded it, installed it, and fired it up with no issues. Set up my preferred control schema with no issues. Played the torturial with no issues.

        Then came time for joining my friends in multiplayer. Issues! No matter what I did, I couldn’t seem to join them. Nor could they join me.

        I verified the installed files, I tried to connect via my phone to rule out ISP issues, and I tried all of the different versions of proton, but the result remained the same. I simply couldn’t join my friends.

        I don’t remember what caused me to go down the right path of troubleshooting, but I’ve always dosabled IPv6 on my linux installs. So I re-enabled it. The problem remained. Then I realized that I had it disabled in the kernel via grub command line flags, so I cuanged that and gave my PC a reboot. Success!

        So, despite networking being a large (maybe even the largest) part of my vocation for the past two decades, last week was the first time ever I actually NEEDED IPv6.

      • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s been getting “more and more use” since 2001. To start with the isps said that they were not going to do any work to implement it until endpoints supported it. Then vista came with support by default. Next they wanted the backbones to support it. All tier 1 networks are now dual stack. Then they said they were not going to do anything until websites supported it widely. Now all cdns support it. Then they said, it’s ok we will just do mass nat on everyone so won’t do any work on it.

        • qprimed@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          exactly. I have been begging multiple ISPs for direct IPv6 allocations for 10+ years now. its always “we are internally testing - not available for distribution yet”. the most recent request from me was less than 3 months ago when I needed a IPv4 /29 for a remote site. figured I would see if I could also get a nice sized IPv6 allocation as well. nope. just gotta keep paying a premium for that dwindling IPv4 address space.

          Hurricane Electric is to be commended for their public IPv6 tunnels, but without direct allocations from your immediate upstream, its just play.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I chose an ISP that dual homed customers on IPv4 and IPv6, but then the giant ISP that wants a monopoly bought them and now I get IPv4

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          A lot of ISPs do have some kind of IPv6. Many don’t give you a prefix with the length they should. Many don’t give you a static prefix. They’re doing everything they can to continue to fuck this up.

          Mostly to their own detriment. Maintaining equipment to do carrier grade NAT makes their network slower, less reliable, and more expensive.

    • neidu2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Whenever I’m given the chance at work, I let my feelings be known about using “consumer grade addressing schema” in production clusters. Sure, I use it at home, but anything beginning with “192.168” looks like my moms wifi, and has no right being part of a production network.

      This comment was sponsored by the 172.16.0.0/12 gang

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I wrote so many essays and exam answers in the late 90s on how IPv6 would come in and fix everything and I’m really feeling this.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It did, wherever it’s used. If you can ditch backwards compatibility in your network and just use ipv6, everything gets so much simpler.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    A day old IPv6 thread where there isn’t some moron arguing NAT is for security? What’s going on here?

  • kratoz29@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ah, how to forget the first obstacle in my hobby self hosting projects, the damn CGNAT…

    “Just open the wireguard port bruh”

    No my friend, I don’t think that is gonna cut it.

    (Thankfully Zerotier and Tailscale work for me).

  • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    A few people need to get off their horses and come up with and agree to IPv4². It’s exactly the same as IPv4 except there’s 2 more octets of address space - 48bits for addresses*. Job done. You’d see wide spread adoption in under 2 years and then we can forget about it all and move on with our lives safe from the clutches of IPv6.

    I don’t give a crap that doesn’t neatly fit into 32 or 64 bit architectures. It’s more than doable at plenty fast speed and it keeps everything manageable.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      And what would be the advantage? It wouldn’t be routable through legacy systems, and you’d run out of addresses in a couple of years again.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It tried to fix everything wrong with IPv4, like shitty multicasting. This made it extra complicated.

        If it had just been 128-bit addresses, it probably would have been widely deployed in the 90s. Don’t need to bother at this point, though, just get it done.

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nothing. It fixes the myriad of horrible hacks that are required for ipv4 to somehow still hang on.

        Of course companies are sad because transition costs money, even though as usual the open source community did most of the work for them.