@lambalicious to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • edit-214 days agoIt's easier to remember the IPs of good DNSes, too.lemmy.sdf.orgimagemessage-square187arrow-up1372arrow-down163file-text
arrow-up1309arrow-down1imageIt's easier to remember the IPs of good DNSes, too.lemmy.sdf.org@lambalicious to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • edit-214 days agomessage-square187file-text
minus-square@dan@upvote.aulinkfedilink2•12 days agoNAT is, and has always been, an ugly hack. Why would anyone like it?
minus-square@jaybone@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•12 days agoDoesn’t that mean private non-routable subnets like 10.x or 192.x have always been a hack?
minus-square@dan@upvote.aulinkfedilink1•11 days agoNo, because there’s use cases for systems that aren’t connected to the internet. Also, public IPs can be dynamic, so you might not want to rely on them internally.
minus-square@orangeboats@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•11 days agoPrivate addresses don’t necessitate NAT. IPv6 also allows private addresses in the form of fd00::/8, like fd00:face:b00b:1::1.
NAT is, and has always been, an ugly hack. Why would anyone like it?
Doesn’t that mean private non-routable subnets like 10.x or 192.x have always been a hack?
No, because there’s use cases for systems that aren’t connected to the internet. Also, public IPs can be dynamic, so you might not want to rely on them internally.
Private addresses don’t necessitate NAT. IPv6 also allows private addresses in the form of
fd00::/8, likefd00:face:b00b:1::1.