(no title)
Latty
|
1 month ago
Except in the real world everyone is also running UPnP, so NAT is also one misconfiguration away from exposing something publicly. In the real world your ISP might enable IPv6 one day and suddenly you do have a public address. Relying on NAT is a bad idea because it's less explicit, a firewall is saying you only want to allow these things through, of course nothing is perfect, you can mess up, but NAT is just less clear, the expectation is not "nothing behind NAT should ever be exposed", it's "we don't have enough addresses and need to share".
deng|1 month ago
lostmsu|1 month ago
direwolf20|1 month ago
[deleted]
willis936|1 month ago
Latty|1 month ago
This is people talking past each other, and to be fair, saying "everyone" in my post made it unclear, I was being glib in response to "because that's not what people run IRL", when evidently people do, I've seen it happen.
skywhopper|1 month ago
Latty|1 month ago
I've literally seen someone's ISP turn on IPv6, and then have their long-running VNC service compromised because they were just relying on NAT to hide their services.
sedawkgrep|1 month ago
...and goes on to ignore enterprise businesses, which consume most of the v4 space and are among the biggest resisters of v6.
everdrive|1 month ago
Definitely not. I've been disabling that for years.
aboardRat4|1 month ago