4 ms·
> End users can use NAT just fine. Servers can use […] reverse proxies, sharing single IPv4 address So you want all computers to be behind at least a single la
by nrabulinski 3y ago
> End users can use NAT just fine. Servers can use […] reverse proxies, sharing single IPv4 address
So you want all computers to be behind at least a single layer of NAT. And you also want people to not only have to purchase a domain but also have to pay their NAT operator to add their domain to the reverse proxy
- mike_d 3y agoEyeball networks are vastly different from content networks. Even among the tinkerer "homelab" and HN crowds, it is rare to host content from the same connection/address you browse from.
- growse 3y agoYou're confusing cause and effect. They're very different precisely because of hacky nonsense like NAT.
- tsimionescu 3y agoHow is (home) NAT making the problem more complex than a stateful firewall? You never want to have a policy where incoming connections/UDP streams are permitted by default to reach any random device on the network, regardless of whether that device has a routable IP or not. Now, CGNAT is a different beast and more worrisome from that point of view.
- growse 3y agoHow do you have two different devices running a webserver on two different IPs at home with NAT?
- kalleboo 3y agoIn a decade or two, everyone is going to be behind CGNAT. There are not enough IPv4 addresses.
- throw0101b 3y ago> How is (home) NAT making the problem more complex than a stateful firewall? ICE/TURN/STUN: the address that your software sees on your laptop, desktop, home NAS is not the address that clients can connect to. In both NAT and non-NAT you have to use UPnP/PCP to do hole punching, but with NAT you have to do a bunch of address-y stuff as well.