My work guest WiFi network allows only IPv4 HTTPS on port 443 and their their own DNS. Everything else, including ICMP (ping) is blocked. Tailscale barely works as any persistant connection is dropped after 2-3 minutes.
Called this out and the security team said noone complains, that there is no use case and they do not want to deal with security risks.
Even without CGNAT you'll only get one IPv4 address forcing a absurd amount of workarounds to be usable, that are mostly hidden in firmwares but sill there.
> able to run ~340 undecillion devices on my home network
You now can have these devices connected to network called Internet.
Unlike IPv4 were the number of devices on the Internet in home network is one (the main router) or zero (in case if CGNAT) and the others just pretend.
Device that connects multiple networks? Layer 3 of the OSI model? Consumer ones tend to have more than that, but the more specific definition would work fine.
Yeah conceivably you could use this to ban any network device that is capable of routing between interfaces, so lots of switches with new firmware could do it, often terribly, as well as PCs with multiple interfaces. But its probably going to involve intention.
That is true, but you can also add USB Ethernet interfaces to any PC, which is even simpler.
For example, my router/firewall, which also implements various other network services, e.g. hosting my own e-mail server, is an old Intel NUC with 5 Ethernet ports, 4 of which are made with USB Ethernet interfaces.
If multiple network interfaces defines a router, then every cell phone is one, because every cell phone has a cellular and Wifi interface, and is a router in hotspot mode. Three interfaces if you count USB which can also be a network interface (hotspot works over USB in both Windows and Linux) and four if Bluetooth PAN is still a thing.
Even if all my apps were from Google Play, it's not up to Google to remotely decide what code I can and cannot run on my device.
Especially important when talking about whole population.
> You may not charge users money for Your Program, and Your Source must contain the monetization systems, including the licensing, trial period tracking, and payment system, present in the MMF Source without an alterations, and all of these systems must be active and working as intended in Your Program.
Called this out and the security team said noone complains, that there is no use case and they do not want to deal with security risks.
And the ossification continues.
reply