3 ms·
This is without even getting into learning the new (old?) paradigm of "exposing" all addresses to the whole internet. I realize "NAT" is not equivalent to "fir
by rkagerer 7mo ago
This is without even getting into learning the new (old?) paradigm of "exposing" all addresses to the whole internet. I realize "NAT" is not equivalent to "firewall", but placing them at the same boundary made things simple to understand conceptually. I for one never had trouble opening/forwarding ports (and liked the control it provided over what goes in and out, especially in the days before it all just became HTTP) but I sympathize with the major headaches the NAT "workaround" caused.
- lunar_rover 7mo agoNAT also solves the dynamic address issue. With GUA I need to deal with both dynamic prefix and randomised suffix that can be changed by seemingly unrelated things when opening ports to the internet.
- preisschild 7mo agoDoes your ISP not offer static prefixes? For 5€/mo additional I get a static /32 v4 (for NAT64) and a /60 v6 prefix.
- _bernd 7mo agoThat's why server use a static suffix and do slaac to get their prefix. It's really as simple as that. Regarding firewall policies: just because most network OS are plain dumb, does not implies that's the fault of IPv6. A zone based firewall solves that already. And for instance OpenWrt fw4 can make rules for suffixes in a zone too.