3 ms·
The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.
by AndyMcConachie 3y ago
The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.
- mikecoles 3y agoNAT is horrible.
- BrianGragg 3y agoLeaned on heavily to protect cheap IOT devices. Could you imagine the bot armies if every IOT device was NOT behind a NAT?
- Zen1th 3y agoNAT shouldn't be used as a replacement for a firewall. So the answer was always to set up a firewall.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Dalewyn 3y agoThe virtues of NAT lie more in their nature of being blanket blacklist firewalls by default. This can indeed be replaced with firewalls on each IPv6 client, but you have to concede that just putting a router between your computer and modem adds a ton of security for very little effort or know-how. But NAT in itself is a workaround for IPv4 limitations with significant problems, which has become permanent because there's nothing as permanent as temporary solutions.
- Symbiote 3y agoEvery IPv6 router for home or small business use is initially configured with a default-deny firewall. The same for every router supplied by an ISP. This is so basic that any argument against it needs some strong evidence. You can search "IPv6 pinhole" and find plenty of documentation from router manufacturers and ISPs on this.
- briffle 3y agoNAT is not a firewall. NAT is a 'hack' that some firewalls use. My university only used routable IP addresses, but due to the wonders of firewalls, you could not connect to the HP printers in the library over the internet. Even though it had a routable IP.
- throw0101b 3y ago> Could you imagine the bot armies if every IOT device was NOT behind a NAT? Why? Firewalls have been around since before 1994, when Cheswick and Bellovin literally published the book on firewalls: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalls_and_Internet_Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalls_and_Internet_Securit...
- jiggawatts 3y agoEverybody looks like they're riding on a high horse when you're lying in the gutter.
- throw0101b 3y ago> The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse. You say this like it's a bad thing. Why should it be necessary to have to deal with all the extraneous infrastructure of STUN/TURN/ICE just for basic connectivity? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Establishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Estab... You have your stateful firewall that does default-deny, only allowing in packets that are replies to internally-initiated sessions. If you need to do hole punching you have UPnP or PCP (which also allows for authentication of requests): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Gateway_Device_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Gateway_Device_Protoc... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol
- rmwaite 3y agoNAT is a terrible hack