2 ms·
It's extremely funny how a network with NAT needs hole punching in the firewall and network without NAT sudenly doesn't have firewall at all. Like OK, in 1995 a
by justsomehnguy 5y ago
It's extremely funny how a network with NAT needs hole punching in the firewall and network without NAT sudenly doesn't have firewall at all. Like OK, in 1995 a router would have been a dedicated machine or appliance, but since 2005 anyone can buy a sub $30 device which routes, firewalls, provides a bunch a of (unnecessary) services... but suddenly incapable of firewalling if IPv6 is involved.
- spookthesunset 5y ago> but suddenly incapable of firewalling if IPv6 is involved. It's been a few years but I've yet to see a consumer grade router that lets you mess with IPv6 firewall rules. I don't even know what these routers use for a default policy. They all seem to have web ui's for IPv4 firewalls and port forwarding though...
- vetinari 5y agoEver seen an average IPv6 firewall, even on $500 devices? You can have dynamic prefix that can change with every moment on your wan interface, but then you have static IPv6 rules and you cannot specify something like use current prefix there. So I understand if the first reaction is screw that.