> NAT is a feature for me, not a workaround
NAT can be fine, but why would it be a feature? (I guess maybe some privacy by way of sharing a public IP?)
NAT can be fine, but why would it be a feature? (I guess maybe some privacy by way of sharing a public IP?)
IPv6 requires a stateful firewall on the router to provide the same protection. Then if you turn that on, it kinda defeats the point.
So you don’t actually need anything different nor special to have the same level of security with IPv6 vs IPv4 + NAT.
Yes, you’re repeating what I’m saying. NAT forced router vendors to implement stateful connection tracking and it increased the security of everything behind them.
> So you don’t actually need anything different nor special to have the same level of security with IPv6 vs IPv4 + NAT.
This isn’t how it played out in practice though. Huge swaths of home routers had no firewall at all when you enabled IPv6 support because it would have taken slightly extra work to enable the v6 conn tracking.
If you actually want to block inbound connections when you're doing NAT, you need the stateful firewall anyway. At that point, pretty much the only thing NAT is doing for your security is making it harder to understand what's going on.