Reply to post: Re: no one bothering to no enquiry as to why organisations are reluctant to go ipv6

We are absolutely, definitively, completely and utterly out of IPv4 addresses, warns RIPE

gnarlymarley Bronze badge

Re: no one bothering to no enquiry as to why organisations are reluctant to go ipv6

If IPv6 had embraced NAT at the start it would have gained much earlier adoption. While NAT is not needed in IPv6 some of us like the inherent security offered with NAT. I can hide tens of thousands of rfc 1918 (private IP's) IP's behind a handful of public IP's which are easy to look for, filter and monitor. with IPv6 Its possible & encouraged to use publicly addressable IP's internally. That way of thinking was seen as a huge drawback of ipv4 & nat was seen as a fudge to enable connectivity but had the extension of being a simple cheap no skill required way of securing systems especially domestic systems who's owners had no need to understand how it worked.

Embrace NAT, let the uninitiated hide behind a gateway, save ISP's costs/bandwidth from zombied customers machines etc etc etc.

Ummm. Are you trying to say that me using NAT66 on IPv6 for about a decade is not possible? Do you have something against RFC4193 addresses in IPv6? Just because they have had RFC1918 equivalents on IPv6 since the early 2000s, doesn't mean we can diss IPv6 just because it does fully support NAT.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019