Amazon finds $1B jackpot in its 100 million+ IPv4 address stockpile | The tech giant has cited ballooning costs associated with IPv4 addresses::undefined

  • bazsy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.

        Generally speaking ipv6 is a PITA to administer, at least from the POV of someone who’s not a professional network admin and can’t be arsed to spend a month learning a gazillion new concepts when I can be just fine with ipv4.

      • bazsy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 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.