News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT. Parent comment

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by chaz6 on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:30AM (#39238815)
Use a nat64 gateway (a list is at https://nat64.xyz).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by thelastparadise on Saturday February 03, 2024 @08:49AM (#39240312)
Just bolting on thing after thing to make it sort of work, maybe, sometimes.

I'll be sticking with ipv4.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by paulddraper on Saturday February 03, 2024 @01:30PM (#39243238)
IPv6 NAT is "bolting on thing after thing" but IPv4 NAT is good architecture :P
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @03:39PM (#39244511)
You do realize you also need dns64 for this to work right? So in fact your proposed architecture is strictly worse
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by orangeboats on Sunday February 04, 2024 @10:09AM (#39250748)
It doesn't take much effort to setup DNS64 though.

Source: I have used NAT64 myself before.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @03:39PM (#39244516)
Not something i would use in prod and also needs dns64
[ Parent | on HN ]