Oh shit, that’s terrible.
Comment on Selfhosting Sunday! What's up?
rtxn@lemmy.world 14 hours agoNo, I got it from the horse’s mouth: my WAN address was publicly routable all along, the ISP just disabled those NAT-related features.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
Pika@sh.itjust.works 12 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 11 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.