5 ms·
If you look at the mobile telco IPv4 blocks, or lack thereof, you'll see that NAT is here, heavily, almost ubiqitously, as carrier NAT. It's destroyed the netwo
by superkuh 7y ago
If you look at the mobile telco IPv4 blocks, or lack thereof, you'll see that NAT is here, heavily, almost ubiqitously, as carrier NAT. It's destroyed the network functionality of mobile telecommunications (lacking routable ipv4) and made them essentially dumb terminals lacking any ability to participate in the 'net. They can only consume other's services.
- PappaPatat 7y agoCan you explain what you mean with "It's destroyed the network functionality of mobile telecommunications"? Since I can think of exactly zero reasons one needs his handheld to be reachable from the Internet (that has not been long solved).
- icebraining 7y agoWhat solution do you know for getting two clients behind CGNAT to talk to each other reliably, without relying on a third-party service?
- vertex-four 7y agoI'd like to be able to communicate with other handhelds without involving a STUN/TURN server, which is hugely unnecessary complexity.
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoDistributed applications and independence from monopolies that aggressively hoard and equally aggressively leak personal data.
- ammmir 7y agoI don't know how I feel about this. IPv6 is the obvious answer, but maybe some kind of NAT is warranted for devices that tend not to have firewalls? If each LTE terminal has a publicly routable IP, unless it's statefully firewalled, any random Internet user who can figure out my IP can run up my data bill, or packet me and inflict a Denial of Service. I remember long ago, some mobile operators in the U.S. were assigning public (non-firewalled) public IPv4 IPs to mobile devices... Attackers were literally scanning Sprint's mobile IP ranges for open port 22 and logging in over SSH as root/aspen to hack jailbroken iPhones!
- zamadatix 7y agoYou don't need to NAT to statefully allow inbound traffic. How the two became forever entangled is past me as technically depending what network you are sourcing from NAT doesn't actually prevent what you describe without also having the actual stateful firewalling enabled. Taken another way: it's easier to statefully filter incoming flows (FW) than it is to statefully map flows (NAT) both from an implementation and operation perspective.