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.
Even tough IPv6 is technically superior to IPv4 for the network operator it doesn’t have clear benefits for home users.
Having global addresses instead of NAT means less control over your LAN and these unique public addresses can track users more accurately.
Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
barsoap@lemm.ee 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.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 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.
bazsy@lemmy.world 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 9 months ago
You can still have internal IP addresses and things like the router firewall work pretty much like they always have. I’m not sure what you mean by less control really.
I feel like that concern is overblown. You get way more information from DNS, for way cheaper, than you get from “there were 27 devices, now there are 28!” and both takes being the ISP and observing the traffic.
It’s also not like VPNs can’t work in IPv6 land for people that really are conscious of hiding as much information about what they’re doing from their ISP as possible.