• 3abas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The comment I responded to:

      If you have enough IPs then not using NAT makes everything less complicated without any downside to security. If you think otherwise then IPv6 is going to cause you some problems.

      From my reading, it’s asserting that you don’t have to worry about private addressing, which is simply not true.

      And from a net admin perspective, the complexity of NATing ipv4 public to private and exposing ULAs (whether you use NAT66 or NPTv6) is comparable.

      If they just meant you don’t have to worry about the underlying complexity of translating, that’s both technically correct and unhelpful. You already don’t have to worry about that.

      It’s this part that makes it clear to me they meant you don’t have to worry about private addressing at all: “If you think otherwise then IPv6 is going to cause you some problems.”

      And I’ve explained it a few different ways in this thread already, so I don’t want to repeat myself, but they are technically correct in that you absolutely could give every device a public IP, and it would be a headache to manage just like OP’s example, where they give every device an ipv4 address without NATing…