Comment on Is it feasible to run a TURN server behind NAT?

• thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  What a lot of nonsense. Of course the technology exists and of course it can be done. But in reality is not done because it simply doesn’t bring any benefit.

  And in addition a address translation is not nat ™ because the server can be hit from the outside.

  Today in ipv4 we have likely 2 Nats, 1 after your router and the other by the carrier (cgnat) and ipv6 those are non existent

  source

  • Aganim@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It was meant tongue-in-cheek, you seem to be taking it much more serious than I intended it to be. 🙂

    But in reality is not done because it simply doesn’t bring any benefit.

    Fully agree that there is absolutely no benefit to NAT66, it only causes enormous headaches. In sincerely hope nobody uses it these days, this poor bastard however did manage to find a VPS provider that used NAT66 back in 2018: blog.apnic.net/2018/02/02/nat66-good-bad-ugly/ 🤢

    source

    • thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Fuck, there is a law in internet (which name I cannot recall) about the impossibility of distinguish an ironic message.

      I felt in that trap completely!!

      source

      • Aganim@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Haha, don’t worry, no harm done. Maybe I was a bit too subtle in hindsight.

        That’s Poe’s Law by the way.

        source
• possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Don’t NAT ipv6. It is bad in so many ways.

  source