this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
185 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

59708 readers
2436 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Amazon finds $1B jackpot in its 100 million+ IPv4 address stockpile | The tech giant has cited ballooning costs associated with IPv4 addresses::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

is there any reason why we can't still use NAT with IPv6? it seems like that would solve at least some of the problems.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In principle, no. In practice I looked into it to do a quick job of enabling ipv6 on my router and the software either just doesn't do it, or fights you actively.

Generally speaking ipv6 is a PITA to administer, at least from the POV of someone who's not a professional network admin and can't be arsed to spend a month learning a gazillion new concepts when I can be just fine with ipv4.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 points 9 months ago

Because you shouldn't. NAT causes so many issues, nobody sane is implementing NAT for IPv6 as an out of the box option.

[–] bazsy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It is possible, it's just not generally supported be ISP routers. Also there is a possibility of performance issues since IPv4 NAT often relies on hardware acceleration which might not work for NAT6.