Today in our newest take on “older technology is better”: why NAT rules!

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Doesn’t that mean private non-routable subnets like 10.x or 192.x have always been a hack?

    • orangeboats@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Private addresses don’t necessitate NAT. IPv6 also allows private addresses in the form of fd00::/8, like fd00:face:b00b:1::1.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      No, because there’s use cases for systems that aren’t connected to the internet. Also, public IPs can be dynamic, so you might not want to rely on them internally.