3 ms·
Yep. But this is what IPv6 was supposed to solve.
by XorNot 2y ago
Yep. But this is what IPv6 was supposed to solve.
- markisus 2y agoI don’t know much about IPv6 but it seems like even if we are stuck with IPv4 we could still make some sort of protocol where my computer could manipulate the NAT table entries allocated to it. Maybe something like DHCP but it deals with ports.
- mindcrime 2y agoIsn't something like that what UPnP / zeroconf is supposed to do[1][2]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-configuration_networking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-configuration_networking
- markisus 2y agoVery interesting. I even found some protocols that exactly implement the functionality I was thinking of! 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
- alwayslikethis 2y agoNAT may go away, but stateful firewalls won't. There will still be many environments where you can't easily get a point to point connection even though the IP is addressable and there is a route.
- markisus 2y agoWon’t the firewall know to let return traffic through if my computer explicitly sends a request first?