• @pivot_root
    link
    English
    225 days ago

    Yeah, I butchered my answer by trying to simplify the process. I rewrote it in a hopefully more accurate but still simple to understand way.

    • r00ty
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      Yep, it’s all good. In my opinion, IPv6 routers should just be dropping incoming connections by default. If you want to run services you give your machine a static IPv6 and open ports on that IP/port specifically. It’s actually easier than NAT because you don’t need to translate ports and each IP can use the same ports (multiple web servers on 80/443).

      I do agree that the average joe is going to expect NAT level security by default and that would provide that.

      • @pivot_root
        link
        English
        325 days ago

        I absolutely agree with you on all points here.

        From a security perspective, allowing all incoming connections by default is unnecessarily exposing devices to a hostile environment. The average Joe isn’t going to understand the risk unless somebody explained it as “it’s like posting your home address on 4chan and hoping nobody manages to pick your front door lock,” and they’re likely never going to take advantage of the benefits that come from having their device be globally reachable.

        Another benefit to not having to deal with NAT is that you can actually host services using the same protocol (e.g. HTTP) on multiple machines without having to resort to alternate port numbers or using a proxy with virtual host support.