Hacker News Reader

I think the big reason that so much effort is put into NAT and other "workarounds" is because those are things "you" can do to solve the problem.

If your upstream provider doesn't support IPV6, you can't do anything to help that besides complain about it and hope they provide it one day.

View on HN

One of the places I used to work had a large number of corporate acquisitions. And sure enough, all of the new purchases also used the 10.x.x.x private space. So to get the systems to integrate quickly and meet the schedule, they used NAT. They were likely one of Cisco's largest NAT customers...

I'm not very knowledgeable in IPv6 adoption. Why do you think that?

In this scenario, NAT was required for them to merge their IPv4 networks because of the high chance (almost certainty!) of address space collision.

With IPv6, the chance of address ranges colliding are much lower because of the wider address space, and the upstream provider wasn't supposed to have been handing out duplicate blocks. IPv6 also has it's own private address prefix (ULA) - fdxx:xxxx:xxxx:.... and if two organizations were both using it for internal addresses, there's a increased non-zero chance of a collision if they merge networks.

Or switch providers. Not that is necessarily practical either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com