lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-25 months agoIt's easier to remember the IPs of good DNSes, too.lemmy.sdf.orgimagemessage-square171fedilinkarrow-up1369file-text
arrow-up1369imageIt's easier to remember the IPs of good DNSes, too.lemmy.sdf.orglambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-25 months agomessage-square171fedilinkfile-text
minus-squaremholiv@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·5 months agoAt the cool network kids hate nat. 😤
minus-squaredan@upvote.aulinkfedilinkarrow-up2·5 months agoNAT is, and has always been, an ugly hack. Why would anyone like it?
minus-squarejaybone@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·5 months agoDoesn’t that mean private non-routable subnets like 10.x or 192.x have always been a hack?
minus-squareorangeboats@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·5 months agoPrivate addresses don’t necessitate NAT. IPv6 also allows private addresses in the form of fd00::/8, like fd00:face:b00b:1::1.
minus-squaredan@upvote.aulinkfedilinkarrow-up1·5 months agoNo, 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.
Wait… Do we not like NAT now??
At the cool network kids hate nat. 😤
Boy do we like it!
NAT is, and has always been, an ugly hack. Why would anyone like it?
Doesn’t that mean private non-routable subnets like 10.x or 192.x have always been a hack?
Private addresses don’t necessitate NAT. IPv6 also allows private addresses in the form of
fd00::/8, likefd00:face:b00b:1::1.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.