&gt;For many of us, a NAT is considered a feature not a bug in fact.<p>What? Nat is always a bug with a hack piled upon hack upon hack. The amount of crap that needs done to get ip2ip communications working and other multiport protocols is stupid and introduces piles of security risks. Protocols like uPNP have produced a plethora of critical exploits allowing an attacker full access to the NAT&#x27;ed network. Firewall controlled IPv4 with a 1:1 ratio of ip to host is always much easier to control the security risks with.<p>Everyone else simply uses NAT because they have no other choice, there simply isn&#x27;t IPs in the 4 address space to do whats needed.<p>So yet again we have a implementation tragedy where everyone would be better off with it working, but no one will do it, leaving us with a hulking crapsack we are used to in every aspect of our life.<p>Further reading: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;30&#x2F;meditations-on-moloch&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;30&#x2F;meditations-on-moloch&#x2F;</a>