Context:
People have been asking for IPv6 Support on GitHub since years (probably a decade by now)
… and someone even got so annoyed that they decided to setup a dedicated website for checking this: https://isgithubipv6.live/
Context:
People have been asking for IPv6 Support on GitHub since years (probably a decade by now)
… and someone even got so annoyed that they decided to setup a dedicated website for checking this: https://isgithubipv6.live/
How is this “dropping packets” not applicable to firewalls, then? You are not just going to casually connect to my IPv6 device as we’re speaking. The default-deny firewall in my router does the heavy lifting… just like what NAT did.
Honestly, it just sounds like you need to brush up on networking knowledge. Repeat after me: NAT is not security.
Are you saying that everyone’s router’s firewall drops all packets from connections that originate from outside of their network?
It’s a stateful firewall. It simply drops unsolicited packets.
So, really, you were “correcting” me for you and your specific setup at the very beginning because your router’s firewall has a deny rule for all inbound connections because I must have been confusing what a NAT and what a firewall is because I must have been talking about your specific configuration on your specific devices.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
Oh come on, are you seriously suggesting that default-deny stateful firewall is not the norm??
Holy. Fucking. Shit. Indeed.
You keep on suggesting to me that you really have no idea how networking works. (Which is par on course for people thinking NAT == security, but I digress)
Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall. If it supports NAT, it must support stateful firewalling. To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called
masquerade. Disregarding routers, even your computer whether Linux (netfilter) or Windows (Windows Firewall) comes built-in with a stateful firewall.Having a NAT on a consumer router is indeed the norm. I don’t even see how you could say it is not.
I never said NAT = security. As a matter of fact, I even said
But hey, strawmanning didn’t stop your original comment to me either, so why stop there?
I never even implied the opposite.
Right, because masquerade is NAT…specifically Source NAT.
I’m just going to go ahead an unsubscribe from this conversation.
Were I really strawmanning you? Is “I never even implied the opposite” really true? Quote:
Yeah, my “specific setup”… which can be found in virtually all routers today.