I am not a full network engineer so take my opinion with a grain of salt. From what I understand, NAT with IPv4 works really really well to mitigate IPv4 address exhaustion. Then there’s an issue with the amount of extra processing switches and routers need to do IPv6, we’re going from 32 bits to 128 bits which is a huge increase and for switches and routers that are handling packets as fast as technically possible with a low amount of resources typically, that’s a not insignificant hurdle.
It’s just easier to do IPv4 in every way, plus that’s what the world’s been using and is used to.
You can’t talk about NAT and then mention speed in the same statement…
The 128-bit IPv6 addresses are just four simple 32-bit integers if you think about it, but with NAT you have juggle around and maintain the (internal IP, internal Port, external IP, external Port, Protocol) tuples all the time. That’s a significant overhead. Also, switches typically deal with the Layer 2 stuffs. IP is Layer 3.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
But why ?
My understanding is it’s no longer that critical. The sky is no longer falling on IPv4
The numerous CGNAT deployed worldwide suggests otherwise.
I am not a full network engineer so take my opinion with a grain of salt. From what I understand, NAT with IPv4 works really really well to mitigate IPv4 address exhaustion. Then there’s an issue with the amount of extra processing switches and routers need to do IPv6, we’re going from 32 bits to 128 bits which is a huge increase and for switches and routers that are handling packets as fast as technically possible with a low amount of resources typically, that’s a not insignificant hurdle.
It’s just easier to do IPv4 in every way, plus that’s what the world’s been using and is used to.
You can’t talk about NAT and then mention speed in the same statement…
The 128-bit IPv6 addresses are just four simple 32-bit integers if you think about it, but with NAT you have juggle around and maintain the (internal IP, internal Port, external IP, external Port, Protocol) tuples all the time. That’s a significant overhead. Also, switches typically deal with the Layer 2 stuffs. IP is Layer 3.
See the HN discussion for more information.
Except when you have to NAT transversal. Then you are in a world of hurt.
Well, there’s the actual engineer response I was looking for