It's obvious to anyone that looks at the two formats that any kind of hacky workaround like NAT gateways will be preferable indefinitely to actually adopting the monstrosity that is IPv6.
- TURN and STUN trivially bypass this side-effect, and a side effect of that is a third party has to often be involved, which can be collecting data later leaked or used against you.
- The monstrosity of NAT is that it's the core thing that drives centralization - because of NAT any two Internet hosts generally have to involve a third party to communicate, a third party which again, can be collecting data later leaked or used against you.
If you don't care about the security implications of the above, then you don't really care about the "firewall" either.
| upnpc -a 192.x.x.x 8080 80 tcp
And to my surprise it just worked. This friend just upgraded to fiber and had just received a new router.
And the attacks you mentioned are initiated from the inside. Not what I stated, that NAT is a sort of a firewall for incoming connections.
The ISP doesn't meaningfully see packets as long as encryption is used. It sees stuff that if analyzes can be used to make guesses, but that's about it. I probably should have used a better term than "third party" but I was meaning services that collect data on everyone like Facebook, Twitter, etc. These services actually receive meaningful, trackable, surveillable data about you and they would not have to receive as much if NAT wasn't a thing.
Inside attacks are important. If you don't care about those, saying you like NAT because of any security benefit doesn't make sense.
OK, let's say I send a packet to your router's external interface with destination IP set to internal address of one of nodes in your network.
Will it reach your internal host? Will I get a response? ;-) I hope you now appreciate how NAT is not a firewall at all.