shrug at work we use NAT to let two different networks with overlapping addresses talk to each other all the time. No firewalls there.

NAT wasn't invented for the home-broadband user, you know.

But I'm at least glad we've cleared up the myth that NAT provides any security benefit when, in fact, it's the often deployed accompanying stateful firewall that's actually providing this.

We out-number companies, perhaps by an order of magnitude.

Not by allocated IP address count.

It's useful to correct this misunderstanding, because people often take "I've always seen NAT come with firewalling" to mean "firewalls are impossible without NAT".

You quite regularly see people pop up in these threads arguing something like, oh, I dunno, "In IPv6 typically every machine on a LAN is directly connected to the internet with a public IP address. Every one of those machines now needs a full strength internet firewall.", as if this is somehow a problem with IPv6 rather than a problem with their own understanding. It's hard enough to get people to deploy v6 as it is without them mistakenly believing that a lack of NAT means their router can't provide firewalling either.