- share a precious IP address at the NAT gateway border
- hide your internal LAN from external network mapper
Last point becomes moot when internal mapping software kicks in, legitimately or not, JavaScript or disingenuous application/daemon/app.
Welcome to Cybersecurity SecOP.
Now this is where Carrier-Grade NAT really shines: added functionality of handling mobile devices' changing IP addresses as it hops from one subnet to another (switching between G5/CSM/WiFi/personal-hotspot)
> handling mobile devices' changing IP addresses as it hops from one subnet to another
We could create TCP/UDP alternative that would handle mobile IP addresses or even make traffic take multiple of those paths at once (look up MPTCP). But we cannot apply it in real scenarios mostly because of middleboxes (like CGNAT) messing up and limiting the messages that should be taken care of on the endpoint.
Right now, there is another battle between AT&T's CGNAT (entire customer base) and Yahoo's NEW login authentication mechanism.
Web browser visiting Yahoo Mail is poorly comparing your external IPv6 with your home's IPv4 and rejecting your login.
This problem gets worse for Linux users as more and more websites (DirecTV) start to use the NEWEST Yahoo login authentication until AT&T somehow starts disbursing IPv6 inside your LAN, ... or something.
So "NAT" security is technically being compromised by Yahoo's JavaScript.
I can agree with the clinically ill, but when you consider the disproportionately high conviction rate of people of color, then the felony restriction becomes a racist stance.
You didnt mention this, but I am also against restricting service members with a dishonorable discharge. For many people, gun ownership is a large part of thier community and thier lives. These folks would have to choose between following every order (legal or not), or going home and being left out of their community and culture for the rest of thier lives. It's a huge amount of leverage to make soldiers shut up and comply.
That is the root of most arguments I have seen, both pro and anti gun.
If people fundamentally disagree about whether the government should have a total monopoly on violence they are unlikely to come to agreement on the issue of gun control.
I'd rather recognize a fundamental values difference with someone than try to argue a bunch of rational points in bad faith, though. No sense raising blood pressure in a discussion that is doomed to be unproductive for both people.
Full disclosure: I am personally on the "Belt fed machine guns should be dispensed from vending machines in elementary schools" end of the spectrum. My views probably don't matter to my point above, but more openness about bias is better.
X Window Release 3 (X11R3) was introduced on Cray into UNICOS (a UNIX variant of Cray OS, COS) in late 1989 using ported 64-bit Xlib. But it was not widely used within small Cray community.
But MIT cooked up X11 "PROTOCOL" of Xlib in late 1985 to 1986 on Univac and Unix in C with many other X libraries written in Common Lisp.
X10R3 mostly stabilized the Xlib around a few platforms and CPU architecture (DDX) in a"long" preparation for X11R1 in September 1987.
Still requires your self-hosted VSP that is NOT behind a CGNAT.
reply