4 ms·
I 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 LT
by ammmir 7y ago
I 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.