Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 is its own complexity.
Why?
[deleted]
NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
21–30 of 180 posts
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#22That NAT is a problem presumes that we actually want our IoT devices reaching out to the out-of-intranet zone.
NAT gets the blame, and the intranet as a concept is generally a big corp term.
But I prefer my IoT devices not to need to reach out of my network. For me, NAT is an unwitting ally in the fight against such nonsense.
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#23The problem(-s) described in the blog post are really acute for IoT in general, especially if you want your device to run on batteries or you have a limited data budget. > Therefore, when you try to continue talking to the server over a previously established session, it will not recognize you. This means you’ll have to re-establish the session, which typically involves expensive cryptographic operations and sending…
[flagged]
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#24That NAT is a problem presumes that we actually want our IoT devices reaching out to the out-of-intranet zone. NAT gets the blame, and the intranet as a concept is generally a big corp term. But I prefer my IoT devices not to need to reach out of my network. For me, NAT is an unwitting ally in the fight against such nonsense.
What NAT are you using that doesn’t have a firewall? I haven’t personally used one of those since the ‘90s.
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#25Interestingly, IPv6 is not listed as the solution
The weird fear around it is crazy. It’s mostly just bigger IPs and it makes so much complexity and ugly hacks like NAT go away.
and also so many other things. ARP goes away, dhcp goes away -- yet people reinvented dhcp anyway and did it wrong (IHMO).
I'm of the opinion that IPV6 changed some small things just enough to get people to have to learn new stuff -- and also forgot that NAT is not a firewall, somewhere along the way.
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#26Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#27NAT was an good solution that the IETF came up with, we wouldn't be able to have the internet at our scale without it
Unless IPv6 were to be actually adopted as it was introduced
I don't know networking all that well. In my mind, I have 50 devices connected to my router behind NAT. My Mac, My Apple TV, my iPhone, My PC, My Linux Box, My partner's versions of all of those. My video games. Etc
From outside there's 1 IP address. With IPv6, every device would get it's own address outside. Why do I want that? That sounds less private to me. Am I mis-understanding something? Lots of traffic on one IP address sounds more obfuscated than all separate.
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
In general, the IPv6 stack is not supported on many smaller mcu. It is not that options like FreeRTOS can't support the stack, but rather the resource constraints pose a challenge. That being said, most modern SoCs are competitively priced... and will boot Linux just fine for under $5/part. =3
Some of the new IoT protocols build on ipv6 natively.
The resource overhead is minimal for modern mcus. Dropping dhcp and arp can save a lot of resources too. Also I have mcus with more ram than my first pc.
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
Eliminating NAT makes virtual networking much hairier. E.g., my desktop is currently connected to a big enterprise network that keeps track of all devices and will only allocate one IP address per MAC address. That leaves no IPs for any VMs on my desktop to use, so they must go through NAT if they want to communicate with the outside world.
Shouldn't the VMs have their own MACs?
Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices
#30The problem(-s) described in the blog post are really acute for IoT in general, especially if you want your device to run on batteries or you have a limited data budget. > Therefore, when you try to continue talking to the server over a previously established session, it will not recognize you. This means you’ll have to re-establish the session, which typically involves expensive cryptographic operations and sending…
[flagged]
Could you elaborate for someone who is unfamiliar?