3 ms·
Yes, but that's an unintended consequence and cannot be relied upon. Any default-configuration firewall would achieve the same, but in a more reliable manner.
by southerntofu 5y ago
Yes, but that's an unintended consequence and cannot be relied upon. Any default-configuration firewall would achieve the same, but in a more reliable manner.
- kiallmacinnes 5y ago> that's an unintended consequence No, it's entirely unrelated to NAT. That's a consequence of the firewall on the router. IPv6 doesn't get rid of the firewall.
- southerntofu 5y agoThat was precisely my point. Thanks for clarifying :)
- effie 5y ago> that's an unintended consequence Even granted that, so what? It does protect home devices' ports by default, no? > any default-configuration firewall would achieve the same OK, but default NAT does achieve it as well, right?