• ngn@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago
    • we already have enough IPv4 addresses thanks to stuff such as NAT and CG-NAT, these devices also protect the end-user by not directly exposing their IP to the internet
    • what’s the problem with broadcast? also afaik IPv4 also supports multicast
    • what’s the problem with IPv4 subnetting?
    • chris@l.roofo.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      In my opinion NAT is a hack that makes lot of things harder than they should be. STUN and TURN are services that are created because there is no easy way to connect two hosts between different NATs. UPnP for port forwarding is another. CG-NAT is even worse. I have heard of so many people having problems with it.

      Breadcast is messy. It is like screaming into a room and waiting for an answer. Multicast lets the computer decide if it wants and needs to listen to a specific group message.

      IPv4 didn’t have cidr from the beginning. They only had classes. IPv6 was designed with complex routing and sub routing in mind.