> 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 extraneou

> 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