undefined | Better HN

0 pointszinekeller3y ago0 comments

To be frank, that's exactly the problem with NAT-PMP et al. assuming that there's no router bugs: the ability to forward ports has been abused to set up bot relays on hacked IoT devices. This is why I predict that even in IPv6 era we would still have to rely on a TURN-equivalent.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

malfist3y ago· 1 in thread

That's exactly the problem with NAT-PMP?

So what's your alternative for peer to peer connections? Static routing that the common end user can't figure out? Re-centralize connections?

UPnP is necessary.

zinekellerOP3y ago

I'm simply pointing the problem, a real-world an realistic problem, and you're acting like it's a non-issue. Point me a CGNATted network which has enable port forwarding. Does it break a lot of things? Oh, absolutely. Did the carriers still not activated it? Yes. Automatic port forwarding is only beautiful when you know how would your device react. It's ugly when you're a network administrator who don't control all devices.

There is no "perfect" solution here because the real world is a messy place with devices that you cannot personally vouch for.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse