> *Who exactly is going to route/send an RFC1918 address to an Internet gateway?... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		throw0101a 17 days ago \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: IPv6 is not insecure because it lacks a NAT > Who exactly is going to route/send an RFC1918 address to an Internet gateway? The GP is talking about 1:1 'basic' NAT: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2663#section-4.1.1

Dagger2 16 days ago [–]

The same problem applies to masquerading. Routers are happy to route packets they receive, and NAT (in whatever form) isn't the tool you use to drop those packets.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact