• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    in the real world we actually use distribution centers and loading docks

    because we can pass packages in bulk between large distances… in routing, it’s always delivery boys: a single packet is a single packet: there’s no bulk delivery, except where you have eg a VPN packing multiple packets into a jumbo frame or something…

    the comment you’re replying to is only providing an analogy: used to explain a single property by abstraction; not the entire thing

    we can have staff specialise in internal delivery

    but that’s not at all how NAT works: its not specialising in delivery to private hosts and making it more efficient… it’s a layer of bureaucracy (like TURN servers and paperwork - the lookup tables and mapping) that adds complexity, not because it’s ideally necessary but just because of limitations in the data format

    routers still route pretty much exactly the same in IPv6 direct or NAT, but just at the NAT layer public IP and port is remapped to internal addresses and ports: the routing is still exactly the same, but now your router has to do extra paperwork that’s only necessary because of the scheme used to address

    • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      In the real world, addresses are an abstraction to provide knowledge needed to move something from point A to point B. We could use coordinates or refer to the exact office the recipient sits in, but we don’t. Actually, we usually try to keep it at a fairly high level of abstraction.

      The analogy is broken, because in the real world, we don’t want extremely exact addressing and transport without middlemen. We want abstract addresses, with transport routing partially to fully decoupled from the addressing scheme. GP provides a nice argument for IPv4.

      I know how NAT works, but we are working within the constraints of a very broken analogy here. Also yes, internal logistics can and will be the harbinger of unnecessary bureaucracy, especially when implemented correctly.