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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

One hour video. Jesus. tl;dw (generated by AI - disclaimer):

" The speaker in the YouTube video discusses why IPv6 adoption is slow due to technical complexities, high costs, and lack of immediate benefits for businesses. He talks about the challenges of maintaining both IPv4 and IPv6, why businesses are hesitant to adopt IPv6, its technical benefits, lack of backward compatibility with IPv4, and the importance of universal adoption for success. Some large companies have not adopted IPv6, and there are concerns about minimal performance gains and transition costs, leading to a prediction of IPv4 and IPv6 coexisting for the next 20 years. "

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

Next 20 years? Dude, I was being taught IPv6 back in 1997, as part of my network course. It was supposed to be the future back then, and so we were trained, expecting to have to implement it wherever we'd go work.

Yeah... I didn't end up in networks, but I sure as shit did not see it used even once in my career so far. Not a single time. It's kinda hilarious, really.