NAT still exists for IPv6

Re:NAT still exists for IPv6 by skimo8 on Monday August 15, 2022 @06:12PM (#32476139)

I use a ULAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address) for this. I have a private, non-routeable subnet, and another non-stable prefix for globally routable addresses.

In effect, it's not much different than how IPv4 works with unstable WAN DHCP addresses from your provider, and I don't have the headaches that NAT brings with it.

It's a different way to think about the problem, but I've actually found it to be pretty nice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NAT still exists for IPv6 by josho on Monday August 15, 2022 @06:51PM (#32476549)

Thank you for this! I've been trying to make Link Local Addresses work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address). But, for tools like ping6 I have to specify the network interface like 'ping6 fe80::1%en1' otherwise routing doesn't work, and doing that complicates everything.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NAT still exists for IPv6 by thedougd on Monday August 15, 2022 @09:52PM (#32478350)

Try adding mDNS to the mix. Works pretty well for link local addresses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NAT still exists for IPv6 by dmm on Monday August 15, 2022 @08:25PM (#32477618)

That approach makes a lot of sense. Does your router assign each ULA or do you configure each host with a static one?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NAT still exists for IPv6 by hackeraccount on Tuesday August 16, 2022 @09:35AM (#32482503)

This is the setup I've ended up on. Seems to work.

[ Parent | on HN ]