> I've seen claims of providers putting IPv6 behind NAT, so don't think full IPv... | Hacker News

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

		ls65536 2 days ago \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Self-hosting a NAT Gateway > I've seen claims of providers putting IPv6 behind NAT, so don't think full IPv6 acceptance will solve this problem. I get annoyed even when what's offered is a single /64 prefix (rather than something like a /56 or even /60), but putting IPv6 behind NAT is just ridiculous.

lucianbr 2 days ago [–]

What is a single /64 prefix not enough for?

zekica 2 days ago | | [–]

Multiple local networks while still using SLAAC.

yrro 2 days ago | | [–]

Separating out main, guest, work, internet-of-shit, security & VPN subnets

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