4 ms·

I wish that NAT wasn't a thing, then every computer could be a known entity on a web without technical setup. I understand the security concerns (and they are

I wish that NAT wasn't a thing, then every computer could be a known entity on a web without technical setup. I understand the security concerns (and they are many) but why can't my phone, which is almost always on, host and serve my content to the 20 odd people who care?

squarefoot 5y ago
> I wish that NAT wasn't a thing, then every computer could be a known entity on a web without technical setup. IPV6 would solve this problem easily, if there weren't so many businesses linked to the IPV4 scarcity.
Jonnax 5y ago
Any network engineer will tell you that NAT is an illusion of security. It's the job of a firewall to prevent routing to private networks. The issue with IPv4 is that there is a limited amount of addresses so we've had to make do. With IPv6, every device in the world can have millions of IP addresses which are globally routeable. However we're only at about 33% of traffic being IPv6 capable. [0] On the mobile phone side, it's a choice by network providers to prevent routing. More of a security thing than anything else. There is a product class called Mobile Private Network, which offers private networks over mobile to businesses. My personal hot take for the low uptake of IPv6 is that there's a lot of people in the industry that have the attitude of "I don't need it so nobody else does which informs management" You can see it when people bring up the low upload speeds and someone says "5mbps is all you need for video conferencing". Ignoring how it's painful to upload videos or other binary data for collaboration. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...
- tremon 5y ago
  The parent's point wasn't about NAT being a security mechanism or not, but about the routability problems posed by NAT.
  - Jonnax 5y ago
    Apart from the lack of public IPv4 addresses, the other reason that people cite for NAT use is security. IPv6 does not need NAT.
- intergalplan 5y ago
  > Any network engineer will tell you that NAT is an illusion of security. That "illusion" was pretty damn effective at taking Windows, around '00, from "pwned in minutes, no user action required" to "won't get pwned unless you click the wrong thing".
  - Jonnax 5y ago
    Well that was 20 years ago. A smart washing machine is more powerful that a computer from 2000. :P
    - intergalplan 5y ago
      Sure, but it's still handy that consumer routers with no extra config protect the smart washing machines connected to them from drive-by unpatched remote exploits, just by having NAT on by default.
      - Jonnax 5y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Let's say you had two routers. 1 with NAT and 1 without. They both will have a firewall that by default blocks incoming traffic. So they are functionally equivalent.
        intergalplan 5y ago
        Could be true, these days. Didn't used to always be, at least on consumer hardware, though I've not seen a non-NATing Internet-connected consumer network in most of two decades.
pabs3 5y ago
Your phone is more likely to have IPv6, so it definitely could serve your content if you were in control of it. Most people aren't in control of their phones though, since they run Android or iOS, which don't allow people to setup web servers.
- Jonnax 5y ago
  Even if you have IPv6, you will be firewalled so that no ports are open for inbound traffic. You can buy a 4G modem and have the same issue.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  Mobile network T&Cs, oversubscription, and asymmetric connections prevent hosting on mobile devices more than any limitations of the OS. Mobile devices themselves also don't make great web servers because their scheduling and power management is tuned for battery life and not responsiveness to a random distribution of incoming network requests. Even if you had some fully unlocked Linux system on a phone it would still make a crappy web server. You'd be a lot better off with a Raspberry Pi with an LTE modem but you'd quickly run into problems on the mobile network side.
- mr_mitm 5y ago
  What do you mean? There are many web servers in the Google playstore [1]. I wouldn't use any of them in production, though, but still, it's useful to transfer the odd file when inside my home network. [1] https://play.google.com/store/search?q=web+server https://play.google.com/store/search?q=web+server

squarefoot 5y ago

> I wish that NAT wasn't a thing, then every computer could be a known entity on a web without technical setup. IPV6 would solve this problem easily, if there weren't so many businesses linked to the IPV4 scarcity.

Jonnax 5y ago

Any network engineer will tell you that NAT is an illusion of security. It's the job of a firewall to prevent routing to private networks. The issue with IPv4 is that there is a limited amount of addresses so we've had to make do. With IPv6, every device in the world can have millions of IP addresses which are globally routeable. However we're only at about 33% of traffic being IPv6 capable. [0] On the mobile phone side, it's a choice by network providers to prevent routing. More of a security thing than anything else. There is a product class called Mobile Private Network, which offers private networks over mobile to businesses. My personal hot take for the low uptake of IPv6 is that there's a lot of people in the industry that have the attitude of "I don't need it so nobody else does which informs management" You can see it when people bring up the low upload speeds and someone says "5mbps is all you need for video conferencing". Ignoring how it's painful to upload videos or other binary data for collaboration. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...

tremon 5y ago
The parent's point wasn't about NAT being a security mechanism or not, but about the routability problems posed by NAT.
- Jonnax 5y ago
  Apart from the lack of public IPv4 addresses, the other reason that people cite for NAT use is security. IPv6 does not need NAT.
intergalplan 5y ago
> Any network engineer will tell you that NAT is an illusion of security. That "illusion" was pretty damn effective at taking Windows, around '00, from "pwned in minutes, no user action required" to "won't get pwned unless you click the wrong thing".
- Jonnax 5y ago
  Well that was 20 years ago. A smart washing machine is more powerful that a computer from 2000. :P
  - intergalplan 5y ago
    Sure, but it's still handy that consumer routers with no extra config protect the smart washing machines connected to them from drive-by unpatched remote exploits, just by having NAT on by default.
    - Jonnax 5y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Let's say you had two routers. 1 with NAT and 1 without. They both will have a firewall that by default blocks incoming traffic. So they are functionally equivalent.
      - intergalplan 5y ago
        Could be true, these days. Didn't used to always be, at least on consumer hardware, though I've not seen a non-NATing Internet-connected consumer network in most of two decades.

pabs3 5y ago

Your phone is more likely to have IPv6, so it definitely could serve your content if you were in control of it. Most people aren't in control of their phones though, since they run Android or iOS, which don't allow people to setup web servers.

Jonnax 5y ago
Even if you have IPv6, you will be firewalled so that no ports are open for inbound traffic. You can buy a 4G modem and have the same issue.
giantrobot 5y ago
Mobile network T&Cs, oversubscription, and asymmetric connections prevent hosting on mobile devices more than any limitations of the OS. Mobile devices themselves also don't make great web servers because their scheduling and power management is tuned for battery life and not responsiveness to a random distribution of incoming network requests. Even if you had some fully unlocked Linux system on a phone it would still make a crappy web server. You'd be a lot better off with a Raspberry Pi with an LTE modem but you'd quickly run into problems on the mobile network side.
mr_mitm 5y ago
What do you mean? There are many web servers in the Google playstore [1]. I wouldn't use any of them in production, though, but still, it's useful to transfer the odd file when inside my home network. [1] https://play.google.com/store/search?q=web+server https://play.google.com/store/search?q=web+server