← Back to context Comment by mahboi 17 hours ago NAT is the solution so far 2 comments mahboi Reply bluGill 17 hours ago NAT is a terrible solution with major downsides.We are close to not having enough just for the servers people really want much less random things that should be contactable peer to peer.NAT should not replace a firewall mahboi 16 hours ago Sure, but it's evidently not that bad. And actually safer than firewalls because the default is so strongly deny-inbound. Most people absolutely don't want random devices on LAN to be exposed to WAN, and those with servers can get a public IP.
bluGill 17 hours ago NAT is a terrible solution with major downsides.We are close to not having enough just for the servers people really want much less random things that should be contactable peer to peer.NAT should not replace a firewall mahboi 16 hours ago Sure, but it's evidently not that bad. And actually safer than firewalls because the default is so strongly deny-inbound. Most people absolutely don't want random devices on LAN to be exposed to WAN, and those with servers can get a public IP.
mahboi 16 hours ago Sure, but it's evidently not that bad. And actually safer than firewalls because the default is so strongly deny-inbound. Most people absolutely don't want random devices on LAN to be exposed to WAN, and those with servers can get a public IP.
NAT is a terrible solution with major downsides.
We are close to not having enough just for the servers people really want much less random things that should be contactable peer to peer.
NAT should not replace a firewall
Sure, but it's evidently not that bad. And actually safer than firewalls because the default is so strongly deny-inbound. Most people absolutely don't want random devices on LAN to be exposed to WAN, and those with servers can get a public IP.