undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyonz3y ago0 comments

Thanks for sharing that, good data point for drop incoming.

I had a nighthawk, I ended up setting up the ipv6 rules.

The TLDR on the debate so far is if router shipped over the last 20 years have both drop IPV4 and drop IPV6 incoming.

In my opinion, NAT was an added layer on top of firewall rules because inbound ports had to be mapped to a particular host and port since the router would not know which host to send to. This created a default opt out experience because for a port on your machine to get accessed, a packet must pass inbound rules and match a port map table entry.

0 comments

throw0101c3y ago

> In my opinion, NAT was an added layer on top of firewall rules because […]

… there were not enough IPv4 addresses to go around, and so you only got one, and if you had more than one system at home, too bad… until NAT got invented.

Back in the dial-up days, you had only one system connected to the Internet—the one that was connected to the modem—and it got the the IP address directly. It was only later with the always-on nature of cable and DSL ISPs that sharing a connection became a thing. IIRC, you used to connect your computer directly to the {cable, DSL} modem without an intervening router, sometimes using USB, as computers having built-in (Ethernet or Wifi) networking wasn't really a thing:

* https://support.dlink.ca/ProductInfo.aspx?m=DSL-2320B

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse