RFC 1631: The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
datatracker.ietf.org
This memo proposes another short-term solution, address reuse, that complements CIDR or even makes it unnecessary. The address reuse solution is to place Network Address Translators (NAT) at the borders of stub domains. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

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.

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      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.mlEnglish
        1·
        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
          1·
          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
        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
      1·
      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.