3 ms·
> as if that's something that anybody wants. Of course I do. Why would you not want the option of easily allowing a device to be globally routable if you need
by audunw 4y ago
> as if that's something that anybody wants.
Of course I do. Why would you not want the option of easily allowing a device to be globally routable if you need it to be?
I think routers should be more explicit about how you set up each new device on a private network anyway. Guest wifi can have a sane default. Private wifi could make a notification pop up on your trusted device, asking you if you want the now device to have access to the internet, and if the internet should have access to the device, and if so, which subnets/countries should be able to access it through which ports.
- aflag 4y agoMost people don’t need it, so that’s why they don’t want it. OP didn’t say people object to it, just that it’s not something most people cares about.
- hot_gril 4y agoIt's fairly common to want P2P connections, even if the users aren't aware of it. A lot of online games rely on NAT traversal, sometimes automatically picking a host based on whoever's NAT it can get past. I don't remember the details, but even the Nintendo Switch cares about NAT. A lot of would-be P2P applications end up using a relay server to get around that restriction, which adds significant cost and latency. Sure it's a well-established workaround by now, but it'd be nice not to rely on it.