ShellMonkey

As directed by the guy who can't speak coherent English much less provide wartime comms.

There came to be an alternate term of 'volcel' for that, at least to the extent that you recognize that your situation isn't conducive to a relationship even if the causes are not really voluntary. It never really caught on in popular use though.

When art and practicality look at one another and run in opposite directions...

If the same letters can be reused I might try a junkyard. If not, maybe 3D printing and chrome paint?

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.

I would be more shocked if he didn't try, it's perfectly on brand from him.

I first heard of it with the 4chan R9K board, but I guess it goes back even further than that. I suppose it's quite possible that by the time 4chan got a hold of the term that was at least the beginning of it becoming poisoned, or it may have already been taken over by that point.

I guess that Jews are out of the white people club in their book. Can't try and post as 'America only supports white people' otherwise.

I'd be more upset for the fact it looks like someone took a picture of William Shatner and tried to put a Trump toupee on it. Kirk deserves better than that.

Incel is such an oddly self reinforcing thing. As I recall it the term started as a self identification (I can't get laid, there for am an involuntary-celibate), which ended up with these self ID people declaring someone else is at fault for their situation, then that attitude got so pervasive it became a given term (you can't get laid BECAUSE you're an incel).

Morphing of language and all, similar happened with 'woke'. Either way, if these folks could comprehend a simple fact that the one person you can demand change of is yourself then maybe they could get out of that cycle.

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.