[superluserdo]

NAT is the problem that IPv6 fixes. Think about the parent comment

>if you are making more than 4B addresses routable then any existing IPv4 device will not be able to route some addresses, so you will have caused a split in the internet

This has basically already happened. We've massively extended IPv4 by stuffing extra address bits into the router's port number, and it means that any two devices behind NATs can't directly route to each other.

[speedgoose]

NAT has been more successful than IPv6 at fixing the same issue, the shortage of IPv4 adresses, but without breaking compatibility (well at the cost of crazy hacks for weird protocols such as FTP).

Not being able to route directly doesn’t seem to be a major issue to me. It for sure require more computing power in routers but also adds some safety and privacy by design.

[growse]

> Not being able to route directly doesn’t seem to be a major issue to me.

Look at the bigger world around you.

I am, right now, involved in a major cloud migration. Having overlapping, constrained RFC1918 space and also having to NAT everything is presenting an enormous set of constraints and risks. It adds literally zero benefit.

Life would be infinitely easier, and we could provide so many more capabilities if everything could just have a routable IP address. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge of our addressing policy.

NAT is an awful, short-sighted hack that causes many more problems than it solves.

[Qwertious]

NAT doesn't fix the issue, it works around it. It means that hosting a home server costs extra money to get a static IP.