Who needs IPv6 when you can put ISP customers behind NAT and host the rest of the internet at a few centralized cloud providers!
@Miaourt @ayo The point is more that NAT is awfully expensive and limits the number of ports to one of a single address, firewalling could often be compared to routing but at a higher OSI level, NAT is rewriting packets and keeping track of extraneous ip:port relations.
Also NAT breaks a bunch of protocols, ~P2P VoIP clients are a mess because of trying to do NAT traversal, FTP should die but it cannot work if the server is behind a NAT.
Also NAT breaks a bunch of protocols, ~P2P VoIP clients are a mess because of trying to do NAT traversal, FTP should die but it cannot work if the server is behind a NAT.
@ayo inb4 serverless is their secret solution to ipv4 exhaustion
@ayo busily swiping the internet back into a compuserv/AOL garden
@polychrome
does that mean Eternal September will finally end?
@ayo
@ayo In Germany it's the opposite it seems. You get a public IPv6 prefix and IPv4 goes through a tunnel. This setup is known as DS-Lite.
@ayo kubernetes users need ipv6 due to giving every machine its own cidr block
