There are people on Jow Forums, right now, who unironically believe NAT was a good idea.
Let that sink in.
There are people on Jow Forums, right now, who unironically believe NAT was a good idea
Other urls found in this thread:
but...but... ipv6 addresses are sooooooo haaaaaard to remember
>>>>>>DS Lite
Can I have my NAT back?
It was a 'good enough' solution for the problem it was trying to solve.
There are people on Jow Forums, right now, who unironically want be identified, up to the device they're using, by a single never-changing address.
>What is dynamic IPv6 prefix
>What is DHCP lease-time
>nat bad
>ipv6 good
They can both suck, you know?
IPv6 is literally bloat.
>hurrr we have more addresses than there are atoms in the Universe.
>massive simplification of the protocol
>is somehow bloat
this board...
Being niggers with the adresses which requires more adresses than atoms in the universe isn't simplification of the protocol
true, it's all the other things
>Hurr durr big numbers bad
>Big number steal small number job
>Small number now on welfare
>Ban big number today, protect your local small number
>he thinks NAT prevents this somehow
ultimate proof ipv6 fanbois are swines
Jesus Christ I always forget Jow Forums consists of 90% neets who have never worked in the industry
Nothing to do with me wanting smaller numbers. Dont care about being able to remember them easier or something stupid like that. Do you truly believe 128bit adresses is the best solution we can come up with?
I miss IPX it was so goddamn simple
4byte networkid:your mac address
>4byte networkid:your mac address
That's alright for you but I have a 6-byte MAC address.
I know you're shitposting but it fixed the major issue at the time, what exactly did you propose we did instead you dumb nigger.
How does that help servers with static addresses? To force ipv6 adoption you need to first convince corporations to do it.
the "industry" is still stuck on IPv4 though