Jack Bates wrote:
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).
Thing is, neither of these cheap CPE has UPNP enabled, which leads me to
question whether claims regarding large numbers of serverless multi-user
game users are accurate.
I disable UPNP as standard practice since it is cannot be enabled securely,
at least not on cheap CPE.
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.
I should have been clearer, apologies. WRT LSN, there is no reason
individual users couldn't upgrade to a static IP for their insecurely
designed multi-user games, and no reason to suspect John Levine's ISP is
not representative with 0.16% of its users requesting upgrades.