this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
36 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37603 readers
601 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't IPv6 solve this? Give each device a static address and you have the state of the internet before NAT became necessary
No it won't resolve the HTTPS and DNS centralized issues.
Yes, somewhat. The problem is places still suck at adopting it, especially phone carriers, and most people are primarily connected via their phones and a lot of people even use that infrastructure as a replacement for broadband as well.
It might be because I live in the UK.
The internet I use is permanently stuck in "use phone carrier as backup" mode and we don't have ipv6 because of that.
Data for me also seems stuck in ipv4.
No, not really, at least not by itself. IPv6 only makes NAT a tiny little easier/unnecessary, as every computer has a routeable IP address. However, many routers will block incoming connections by default, so you still have to go to your router config and fiddle, just as with NAT. IPv6 also doesn't help with DNS, a routeable address by itself is meaningless when there is no means to find out what address the other guy has. IPv6 are dynamic and change all the time, even more frequently than IPv4.