[radiojosh]

I don't understand your first point about firewalls, but port forwarding on a consumer router is no more difficult than opening a port on a firewall. Either one can be overcomplicated by a badly designed interface. See Uniquiti Edgerouter for an example.

I know gaming consoles can be a pain with NAT, but is that NAT's fault? That link you pasted about the Nintendo Switch is literally just an article about setting up port forwarding.

And that NAT slipstreaming issue is just a vulnerability caused by complicated protocols. Saying that a fundamental network technology is bad because its implementation is flawed doesn't make sense. I guess we should throw away x86-64 because Intel Skylake processors had side channel vulnerabilities.

[jeroenhd]

Yes, firewalls are easy, that's my point. Any consumer router will cone with apps strong a firewall as NAT us able to provide, and an even stronger one if ALGs are enabled.

The consoles are a common and obvious downside of using NAT. The Nintendo Switch article is an example of the stupid workarounds vendors will require because of NAT. None of these issues existed if we used IPv4 as it was designed.

The issue behind NAT slipstreaming isn't that the protocols are too complex. They work fine on IPv6 and they worked fine on IPv4 without NAT. The issue is that NAT requires hacky workarounds to do normal networking. The ALG vulnerabilities can be fixed, but fixing them wouldn't be necessary if NAT wasn't such a hack.