While others across the industry battle it out over 10-gig claims, Google Fiber is looking to go bigger, plotting the rollout of a symmetrical 20-gig service for select residential and business cus | The service will use Nokia's 25G-PON gear and initially be available later this year as an invite-only product.
    • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
      116·
      1 year ago

      And we’re still stuck on IPv4. Going to IPv6 would do a lot more than 1Gbps connections would.

        • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago
          • Better routing performance
          • No longer designing protocols that jump through hoops to deal with lack of direct addressing
            • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
              21·
              1 year ago

              No, stop this. NAT is not a security measure. It was not designed as one, and does not help security at all.

                • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Because hiding addresses does very little. A gateway firewall does not need NAT to protect devices behind it.

                  In fact, NAT tends to make things more complicated, and complication is the enemy of security. It’s one extra thing that firewalls have to account for. Firewalls behind NAT also don’t know where traffic is originally coming from, meaning they have one less tool at their disposal. This gets even worse with CGNAT, which sometimes has multiple levels of NAT.

                  Security is a very common objection to getting rid of NAT, and it’s wrong.

                  • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
                    2·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m curious and quite ignorant in networking, so excuse the questions.

                    How would the house devices communicate with each other?

                    In my home LAN behind a router and NAT, each device gets an internal IP thanks to DHCP. If I want to make my homeserver media server with DLNA available only internally, there’s nothing I have to do. Just start it up with 0.0.0.0 and it’ll be picked up (if I’m not mistaken by sending a multicast packet to the router). It’s then possible for any smart TV in my home to pick it up, and my phone or computer with VLC don’t need any configuration either.

                    And if I have a service that should be available to the world, port forwarding does it for me. Should a user want to torrent or use some P2P application, the router can also selectively enable UPnP to open ports for that user’s device. It’s not that complicated.

                    What is complicated that makes NAT worse for security? How would a gateway firewall improve it? Doesn’t it have to keep track of connections too in order to know what’s going on? For example just because a device (A) establishes a connection with an external one (B), doesn’t mean that another external device © is allowed to use that port to communicate with the the internal device (A).
                    What else besides address translation falls away if you remove NAT?

          • lud@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago
            • No longer designing protocols that jump through hoops to deal with lack of direct addressing

            Fucking CGNAT…