977

submitted 4 days ago by lb_o@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I was learning IPv6 in second year Network & Télécom, in 1997. We were running out of IPs back then.
Then we invented proxies and NAT and things got better and nature took its course (it ain't broke? Don't fucking touch it).

[-] dormedas@lemmy.dormedas.com 14 points 4 days ago

Sure, nature took its course, but did NATs make things better? I’m a game dev and getting two computers to talk to each other is so so much harder due to NAT traversal, requiring punchthrough servers. Voice chat and stuff need STUN/TURN servers. A game has to account for “what if my host wants to connect two clients, one of which within the NAT and one without?”

Makes far more sense to give every device an address and just talk to it and leave security and port openness up to firewalls.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

I have tried to code TCP hole punch through and aAaaaaaaAaaaAAAaaaa

[-] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 5 points 4 days ago

getting two computers to talk to each other is so so much harder due to NAT traversal

... which is why you will take IPv4 on my home network from my cold, dead hands, and why all IPv6 traffic is blocked in the network that hosts my PC/laptop

[-] dormedas@lemmy.dormedas.com 9 points 4 days ago

So you admit you can block IPv6 traffic in your rebuke to IPv6 adoption. What’s then the issue? Block what you want, it’s your network, but do it with a firewall and not NAT.