Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
dreamstation.systems
Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
1–10 of 197 posts
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#2Time to set up IPV6.
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#3NAT made distinction between PCs and servers too broad.
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#4Related comment from another thread
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49454785
> Even more ironic is that NAT got normalized as a security feature — “your devices are hidden!” — which is one of the things that made people resist the thing that would fix it.
That tracks. I briefly looked into the Tailscale website and I thought maybe I was wrong, maybe it's not a NAT/ddns toolchain, maybe it's something more complex that I'm too dumb to understand. But if my thesis that it's NATware is right, it makes sense to market it as a security product, it fooled me for one, but it also passes as a quality product for an organization, and they feel they are getting a security product when they are actually signing the purchase request of a developer that is applying networking techniques they learned from managing a videogame server.
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#5Time to set up IPV6.
Or just use an ipv4 address. It works I swear
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#6Related comment from another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49454785 > Even more ironic is that NAT got normalized as a security feature — “your devices are hidden!” — which is one of the things that made people resist the thing that would fix it. That tracks. I briefly looked into the Tailscale website and I thought maybe I was wrong, maybe it's not a NAT/ddns toolchain, maybe it's something more comple…
I'm having trouble decoding this but Tailscale is a VPN that can traverse NAT when necessary. Arguably Tailscale wouldn't be needed if NAT didn't exist but considering the timeline I'm not going to declare a conflict of interest.
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#7[deleted]
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#8I remember times before NAT and SSL
You could share things easily, sure, but anyone could get hacked pretty easily and very targetted.
After NAT, sharing was still easy lots of 'piracy' apps, various messengers with NAT passthrough
Both before and after you needed to be technical, you can't ask someone that doesnt know about computers to set up an FTP server, and if they did it would be a nightmare and they'd likely share their whole drive
Same goes for anything else.
Anyway, we'll get the whole non-nat with IPv6, let's see what that brings
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#9I remember times before NAT and SSL You could share things easily, sure, but anyone could get hacked pretty easily and very targetted. After NAT, sharing was still easy lots of 'piracy' apps, various messengers with NAT passthrough Both before and after you needed to be technical, you can't ask someone that doesnt know about computers to set up an FTP server, and if they did it would be a nightmare and they'd likely…
It brings the requirement for a firewall on every endpoint with a unique address. My Phone often has an ipv6 address (found out this holiday wen I couldn't resolve one of sites because of an orphan ipv6 entry nobody noticed), and has little problems. Perhaps there is also "firewalling" on the router and the phone can't even have incoming connections. Not sure. In any case, the phone seems to do fine.
Re: Internet centralization and the original sin of NAT
#10I'm still not convinced that IPv6 is a good thing. I think that we should have doubled down on sharing IP addresses. Both for consumbers (NAT) and for servers (NAT, TLS/HTTP reverse-proxying). It just solves all problems with IP address exhaustion. And the fact that consumers can't just directly connect to each other is a feature.