Comment by 1dom

I understand your view, I just disagree with the value you're putting on it, and I feel you're straying into accidentally insulting people to justify yourself:

You called yourself a philosopher and then proclaimed philosophers are the only ones who read security as an integral part of system architecture, whilst veterans are essentially vibe coding and surviving on the lucky mess they create.

I find your position that misconfiguration is a red herring in security as completely unjustifiable and untenable.

It's probably that I'm just a puny brained veteran seeing your big complex philosopher smarts as incoherent though.

Anyway, I digress from the key point I've been trying to make in this entire thread:

I'm not arguing that IPv6 is not secure because it lacks NAT. My point was that this entire discussion is silly engagement bait: there's no clear right answer, but it's an easy topic for dogma and engagement. A holywars topic like NAT, IPv6 and security is prime for that. The author and submitter muddies the waters further by - probably not intentionally - choosing a strawman submission title.