ShellMonkey

They'll be reverted as soon as he gets some flattery and palm greasing from the right people.

So now he thinks he can make demands extraterritoriality, awesome. I don't suppose he would make demands like 'stop invading and murdering you neighbor countries and their people' now would he? Nah, let's drop sanctions from Russia and who is this Israel place that he was meant to stop from doing bad things, I haven't heard much on them of late....

Built up tolerance, just keep an eye on the rest of the monkeys in the admin though for any strange or inexplicable behavior.

I hear Pete Hegseth started a drinking game based around every time Trump says the word tariff.

Except my chats are not subject to public records act laws for oversight and public information, so if I choose to keep them off record it's not illegal.

Yet it somehow doesn't strike him as off at all that long standing allies suddenly feel a need to band against us. It's a mystery I say, maybe they just woke up and had a bad morning...

It's impressive and somewhat concerning what people will pay for a name. Historic as it is Napster died long long ago

What you might call a stateful NAT is really a 1-1 NAT, anything going out picks up an IP and anything retuned to that IP is routed back to the single address behind the NAT. Most home users a many to one source nat so their internal devices pick up a routable IP and multiple connections to a given dest are tracked by a source port map to route return traffic to the appropriate internal host.

Basically yes to what you said, but a port forward technically is a route map inbound to a mapped IP. You could have an ACL or firewall rule to control access to the NAT but in itself the forward isn't a true firewall allow.

Same basic result but if you trace a packet into a router without a port forward it'll be dropped before egress rather than being truly blocked. I think where some of the contention lies is that routing between private nets you have something like:

0.0.0.0/0 > 192.168.1.1 10.0.0.0/8 > 192.168.2.1

The more specific route would send everything for 10.x to the .2 route and it would be relayed as the routing tables dictate from that device. So a NAT in that case isn't a filter.

From a routable address to non-route 1918 address as most would have from outside in though you can't make that jump without a map (forward) into the local subnet.

So maybe more appropriate to say a NAT 'can' act as a firewall, but only by virtue of losing the route rather than blocking it.

NAT in the sense used when people talk about at home is a source nat, or as we like to call it in the office space a hide address, everyone going to the adjacent net appears to be the same source IP and the system maintains a table of connections to correlate return traffic to.

The other direction though, if you where on that upstream net and tried to target traffic towards the SNAT address above the router has no idea where to send it to unless there's a map to designate where incoming connections need to be sent on the other side of the NAT so it ends up being dropped. I suppose in theory it could try and send it to everyone in the local side net, but if you get multiple responses everything is going to get hosed up.

So from the perspective of session state initiation it can act as a firewall since without route maps it only will work from one side.

Assuming it's not a 1-1 NAT it does make for a functional unidirectional firewall. Now, a pure router in the sense of simply offering a gateway to another subnet doesn't do much, but the typical home router as most people think of it is creating a snat for multiple devices to reach out to the internet and without port forwarding effectively blocks off traffic from the outside in.

Did they get doge efficiency updates installed?