Hacker News Reader

Comment by pif | Hacker News Reader

We may discuss the past, if you wish, but the present is what matters. And, today, NAT is, and IPv6 is not.

Lolwut?

   Non-authoritative answer:
   Name:       google.com
   Addresses:  2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8b
               2607:f8b0:4002:c00::66
               2607:f8b0:4002:c00::65
               2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8a
               74.125.136.100
               74.125.136.138
               74.125.136.101
               74.125.136.113
               74.125.136.102
               74.125.136.139

Actually, IPv6 is! Just that you are not using it doesn't mean half of the internet isn't using IPv6 right now.

IPv6 behind an equivalence of NAT is. :D

You seem to be conflating a stateful firewall with a NAT. Unless you really need to, you're never doing NAT on ipv6.

No, we're not doing NAT, but the devices aren't really accessible from the wide web either. In this case "NAT" is just an implementation detail and getting rid of it didn't bring any of the benefits IPv6 promised.

> No, we're not doing NAT, but the devices aren't really accessible from the wide web either.

Which is a policy issue (implemented through rules on a firewall), and not an inherent limitation of the technology (like NAT is).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com