Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
After staunch resistance, NAT may come to IPv6 after all
arstechnica.com — With the end of the supply of IPv4 addresses in sight and no IPv6 deployment to speak of, the IETF is working on a way to let IPv6 users connect to the IPv4 Internet. This may even involve the dark art of Network Address Translation, which was supposed to be kept out of IPv6.
oboy- 129 diggs
- digg it
- rjt69, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4i like the security of NAT. Why would i want to expose all of my systems directly to the internet?
- Avian00, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Agreed. I don't understand why Security isn't mentioned once in that entire article. NAT may have its downsides, but security is what I would consider its biggest strength! That should not be ignored when deciding whether or not to keep NAT around.
- JanZorz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0This is so funny. NAT is *NOT* a security mechanism, it is a translation mechanism. Who lied to you, that NAT "protects" you?
Jan
- doktaru, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2A router is still a router without NAT. If you use a router, the wide-area network still goes through the box, it just doesn't have to play fancy addressing tricks and guess what computer it is _really_ trying to access. In fact, if your router is properly configured, you can end up with better security than with NAT because you can leverage the additional addressing information about the incoming connection for the firewall or packet filter.
Giving up NAT does NOT mean that you have less control over the data entering the network, in fact, it is just the opposite. - GruntboyX, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I found the article informative. I had no idea that IPv6 was not compatible with nat. Seems limiting because 128bit address field will eventually get used up. I realize that 2^128 is a really big number, but eventually as population grows and number of devices connected grows it will hit a physical limit. We may never hit that limit in 500 years...but still why not incorporate nat into ipv6 it seems like it would only harden and strengthen the protocol and maybe improve its adoption.
- Banda, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2IPv6 will Never run out:
For example, IPv6 supports 2^128 (about 3.4×10^38) addresses, or approximately 5×10^28 (roughly 2^95) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5×10^9) people alive today.[1] In a different perspective, this is 252 addresses for every star in the known universe[2] – more than ten billion billion billion times as many addresses as IPv4 supported.
- Banda, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2IPv6 will Never run out:
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by