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
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months 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
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

    • bazsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.