28 ms·
The question is, why is UPnP even needed on IPv6?
by segfaultbuserr 8y ago
The question is, why is UPnP even needed on IPv6?
- xxpor 8y agoI assume to open the firewall. If you're going to run IPv6 at home, you probably want the firewall equivalent of NAT: Connections are allowed outbound, but not inbound unless on a specifically whitelisted IP/port.
- JohnFen 8y agoYou can continue to use NAT with IPv6. If/when I have to run IPv6 on my LAN, I plan on doing exactly that. I explicitly don't want outside connections to be made directly to arbitrary machines inside my LAN. I have a DMZ for a solid reason.
- icedchai 8y agoAlmost nobody uses NAT with IPv6. There's not much reason to. You want a firewall, not NAT.
- JohnFen 8y agoWell, a router more than a firewall. Either way, a mechanism to do this is essentially a NAT. What I want is a single IP address that is exposed to the internet at large, which is serviced by various different servers behind the firewall depending on the ports. The outgoing traffic from these servers should be from the same single IP address. That's a NAT in my book.
- icedchai 8y agoTechnically, this is PAT: port address translation. Why do you want this?
- xxpor 8y agoFor the love of god, don't do this. NAT is not a security feature.
- phalangion 8y ago> I explicitly don't want outside connections to be made directly to arbitrary machines inside my LAN. That's exactly what a firewall is for.
- arbitrage 8y agoNAT is not a firewall. IPv6 doesn't need NAT.
- JohnFen 8y agoI'm not sure why I'm getting so many replies like this. I agree, a NAT is not a firewall. I also agree that IPv6 doesn't need NAT. All I was saying is that you can use a NAT with IPv6 if you wish, and I'm interested in the sort of routing that a NAT can accomplish.
- stephen_g 8y agoBecause it's generally a silly idea with IPv6. There are few things NAT is useful for, and a whole lot of disadvantages. What specifically are you trying to achieve?