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

  • @Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year 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.