3 ms·
> The existence of PASV mode and STUN/TURN is because the end-to-end addressibility of the IP protocol was broken with CGNAT. But isn't all that still necessar
by LegionMammal978 3y ago
> The existence of PASV mode and STUN/TURN is because the end-to-end addressibility of the IP protocol was broken with CGNAT.
But isn't all that still necessary as long as the typical user isn't going to be opening their firewall on those ports to arbitrary incoming connections? That's the whole point here.
- lxgr 3y agoSTUN (or something similar) yes (since you'll need to coordinate outbound traffic which creates the appropriate inbound rules), TURN no (since STUN will always succeed with stateful but non-translating firewalls). And STUN scales almost infinitely better than TURN.