Happy 30th birthday to RFC 1631 ("NAT"), the "short term solution" we all rely on - eviltoast
RFC 1631: The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
datatracker.ietf.org
This memo proposes another short-term solution, address reuse, that complements CIDR or even makes it unnecessary. The address reuse solution is to place Network Address Translators (NAT) at the borders of stub domains. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

From the conclusion:

NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only implementation and experimentation will determine its appropriateness.

  • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
    10·
    6 months ago

    exactly. I have been begging multiple ISPs for direct IPv6 allocations for 10+ years now. its always “we are internally testing - not available for distribution yet”. the most recent request from me was less than 3 months ago when I needed a IPv4 /29 for a remote site. figured I would see if I could also get a nice sized IPv6 allocation as well. nope. just gotta keep paying a premium for that dwindling IPv4 address space.

    Hurricane Electric is to be commended for their public IPv6 tunnels, but without direct allocations from your immediate upstream, its just play.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      9·
      6 months ago

      I chose an ISP that dual homed customers on IPv4 and IPv6, but then the giant ISP that wants a monopoly bought them and now I get IPv4