Comment on Selfhosting Sunday! What's up?
BCsven@lemmy.ca 17 hours agoPort forwarding is done at the router/firewall, so if ports can’t be transferred its a cgnat thing they are doing. Like a Non CGNAT IP on the internet can be sent a packet on any port.
rtxn@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
No, I got it from the horse’s mouth: my WAN address was publicly routable all along, the ISP just disabled those NAT-related features.
Pika@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
the implication of that is weird to me. I’m not saying that the horse is wrong, but thats such a non-standard solution. That’s implementing a CGNAT restriction without the benefits of CGNAT. They would need to only allow internal to external connections unless the connection was already established. How does standard communication still function if it was that way, I know that would break protocols UDP that require a fire and forget without internal prompting.
rtxn@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
It’s perfectly reasonable from the perspective of corporate scum: take away a standard feature, then sell it back as an extra. As far as I know, the modem still had UPnP for applications that rely on it.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
Oh shit, that’s terrible.