
Ask HN: Original implication of IPv6? - z3phyr
I apologize, as this is a fundamental question I got from a school kid (We correspond in a User Group) and it got me into a thought...<p><i>The early implication of IPv6 was that everyone&#x2F;everything would get the power to host their own content and be identifiable over a network. It was touted as a boon to distributed internet people; But it didn&#x27;t turn out as well. I think the main culprit behind this is the NAT, which kinda serves as a control mechanism. Can we get rid of the NAT??</i><p>I answered back by stating the usual &quot;Security and Privacy Reasons&quot;, but I think there must be something more to it. Network is not one of my specializations.<p>What are your thoughts about it? Also Is there an initiative for a distributed Non-NAT network?
======
jstewartmobile
Last I read, most IPv6 networks in western countries are already NAT-less.

There was an IPv6 post a few days ago about how China was surprisingly under-
deployed on IPv6. The speculation was that they were sticking to IPv4 and
carrier-grade NAT for control purposes.

That being said, I'm sure if NAT-less ever starts cutting into the income of
our FANGs, they'll surely cook-up some reason to re-introduce NAT to IPv6.

