4 ms·
You're confusing cause and effect. They're very different precisely because of hacky nonsense like NAT.
by growse 3y ago
You'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.