Roger Marquis wrote:
If this were really an issue I'd expect my nieces and nephews, all of whom are big game players, would have mentioned it. They haven't though, despite being behind cheap NATing CPE from D-Link and Netgear.
Disable the uPNP (some routers lack it, and yes, it breaks and microsoft will tell you to get uPNP capable NAT routers or get a new ISP). uPNP at a larger scale? Would require some serious security and scalability analysis.
Arguments against NAT uniformly fail to give credit to these security considerations,
Your argument has nothing to do with this part of the thread and discussion of why implementing NAT at a larger scale is bad. I guess it might have something to do in other tangents of supporting NAT66. Jack