910
We don't talk about IPv5
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
910 points (96.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
25567 readers
510 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I know it's a joke, but the idea that NAT has any business existing makes me angry. It's a hack that causes real headaches for network admins and protocol design. The effects are mostly hidden from end users because those two groups have twisted things in knots to make sure end users don't notice too much. The Internet is more centralized and controlled because of it.
No, it is not a security feature. That's a laughable claim that shows you shouldn't be allowed near a firewall.
Fortunately, Google reports that IPv6 adoption is close to cracking 50%.
I think NAT is one reason why the internet is so centralized. If everyone had a static IP you could do all sorts of decentralized cool stuff.
Right, not the only reason, but it's a sticking point.
You shouldn't need to connect to your smart thermostat by using the company's servers as an intermediary. That makes the whole thing slower, less reliable, and a point for the company to sell your personal data (that last one being the ultimate reason why it's done this way).
Everyone having a static IP is a privacy nightmare.
There's a reason the recommendation in the standard for ipv6 had to be amended (it whatever the mechanic was) so that generated local suffixes aren't static. Before that, we were essentially globally identifiable because just the second half of your v6 address was static.
publicly addressable does not mean publicly routable… your router would still not arbitrarily connect untrusted external devices to internal hosts
NAT has the property of a firewall only as an implementation detail. replacing NAT with an IPv6 firewall in the router is an upgrade in every conceivable way
I'm aware of that, and didn't say otherwise?
My comment wasn't even ipv6 specific, quite the opposite. The comment I was replying to also wasn't, and the implication that things would be better if everyone had a fixed IP(v4) was actually the specific privacy nightmare scenario I wanted to emphasize. That is the literal worst case of all.
Things can be mitigated somewhat with IPv6, but also only to a degree. Here you'd (usually) have a static prefix and not IP. You then need to use the randomized suffix generation (on a host level, or in DHCPv6 if you're using that), and not all OS so this by default, but I think Windows does these days. Advertising data collectors, which means basically every web site, could just assume that your prefix is stable and the information they gain if they happen to be correct it's... uncomfortable.
ah! sorry i misread/misunderstood privacy to mean security in your comment :)
IPv4 centralization creates far more privacy issues than everyone having a static IP. The solutions are still things like VPNs and onion routing.
Which is why IPv6 was created. Everything used to get a public routable IP. Large company’s such as ATT and IBM got a whole /8 to themselves. NAT made it so we did not run out of IP’s in the 2000’s