legacy1 wrote: You do know its been proven you can be a security risk even with NAT don't you? In fact NAT routers themselves have been known to have security risks and so then all your devices are compromised and thats just for starter there are way more security risks that NAT can not protect you from.
Yes I do, but NAT is better than simply putting the devices directly on to the Internet, as seems to be the case here. Obviously a Firewall should also be in place. I was just asking why Zach8 was "dreaming of a service with no NAT" to understand the context.
My original question was whether the setup that has been implemented by the VM engineer on this site is typical for VM business setups? I haven't seen non-web service devices given public IP addresses for a long time. I was trying to understand whether this was a standard config (by design) and other forum members have been setup this way, or whether the engineer was having an off day and didn't setup correctly.
Was told about this a while a go by VM support - thing is it gets a very different IP to the normally unused non-gre one, perhaps even in the consumer range - the ones I got were all over IP blacklists.
I have noticed better QOS afterhours since the update - so maybe there are working on the service