boost this post to upset netadmins.
-
boost this post to upset netadmins. my god, where do you even begin
#shitpost
-
this reminds me of why i left technical subreddits because yeah they are all this bad at this point
-
-
terra (glorified script kitty)replied to Amber last edited by
@[email protected] puppy just showed me this and it made me upset enough i had to come and say "argh!!!"
-
P [email protected] shared this topic
-
@[email protected] this is why i do not talk on reddit
-
@puppygirlhornypost2 Every IPv6 debate ever. Ugh. Even if you tell them that NAT doesn't prevent access to your network at all and that it's a work of firewall, which does it with or without NAT, they don't care. The most bizzare exchange I had continued "Yes, but firewall is always a part of router with NAT" as if that was some kind of proof that you need NAT.
-
@puppygirlhornypost2 And this is the problem with baking NAT in 'by default' and presenting the UI as if it was actually part of the core network protocol rather than a separate tab like the firewall... By presenting it as "the device's primary function" they confuse people into thinking that NAT is a hard requirement rather than an 'optional' "oh shit we're out of addresses" hack that just so happens to provide similar security primitives to a stateful firewall due to the limitations imposed by it being a hack.
IMO a better way to express that behavior existing is not "NAT is not a firewall" but rather "NAT needs a firewall to work, and thus devices with NAT have one on-by-default." Which for linux, is actually 100% accurate: NAT is done by the firewall code and shares the connection tracking table with it.
