[nemothekid]

The problem is, as I understand it, is this hypothetical network where there is a NAT but no firewall just does not exist.

>In commercial grade routers, the same applies except even if the external IP knew to direct the router to the right internal IP, or if the route knew to direct the traffic to the right external IP for outbound connections, unless you configure a default route, or a more explicit route, it won't forward such traffic.

This is typically handled by the firewall, not the NAT. You can easily come up with scenarios that without the firewall, the NAT could be trivially defeated, e.g. by port scanning.

[notepad0x90]

It is not, you guys are talking from a specific american ISP perspective where you have these modem+router+gateway+firewall combo devices. Not everyone gets that.

Many get just a modem and buy a cheap router which may not have a firewall. MANY more get just a modem and their laptops are directly exposed to the internet (!!!), those you can't do much about, but many put a "router" that's just a cheap wifi access point with layer 3 routing and NAT. If you chose to "bridge" a device (like those internet exposed laptops) or port-forward, it will just work (even with ISP routers!!) there is no firewall rule change required.

I've worked in this space supporting consumer grade routers, and then worked in enterprise networking. But don't take my word for it, you all can take a trip to shodansafari, how many devices are listening port 3389 and 445 with consumer grade laptop names?

But it isn't a popular thing to say for whatever reason. I guess IPv6 is a political ideology now lol.

[nemothekid]

>Many get just a modem and buy a cheap router which may not have a firewall

What cheap router are you buying that doesn't have a firewall. I think the problem is when people hear "firewall" they think the router is running pfSense or something. Even cheap routers will have a basic, non-configurable, firewall that will block inbound connections. That is separate from NAT and has nothing to do with IPv4/IPv6.

[iso1631]

The nat is a belt and braces approach - especially when combined with rpf. How will your packet reach 192.168.0.1 from the internet without having a nat rule to translate the packet, even if there is a firewall rule allowing all traffic

(If you control the next hop and the router doesn't have rpf checks on the wan interfaces you can forge a packet with a destination of 192.168.0.1 and route it via the public IP of 40.50.60.70)