3 ms·

Depends on what you mean by "separation". My LAN devices have IPv6 addresses that would be reachable from the WAN if my router's firewall didn't block incoming

Depends on what you mean by "separation". My LAN devices have IPv6 addresses that would be reachable from the WAN if my router's firewall didn't block incoming packets to those addresses. For some of those devices that host public services, I enable traffic just for the relevant protocol and port to their IP, instead of bothering with port forwarding.

gary_0 4y ago
This answer is what every argument about IPv6 and NAT boils down to: they say "NAT" but really mean "firewall". In my opinion, using NAT for IPv6 networks is just a false sense of security to make you think LAN nodes are more protected because their address numbers look different, when all you're really trying to say is "don't route to this node from outside".
- dopp0 4y ago
  why it would be a 'false' sense of security if it's not exposed? I don't seem to get it as 'security through obscurity' at all. sincere question, I'm not a network guy.
redblacktree 4y ago
I'm not a networking guy. Do you think that approach would work for a device behind CG-NAT? (i.e. route the IPv6 address over the WAN, rather than port forwarding; which I can't do because of the CG-NAT)
- Arnavion 4y ago
  You mean you have CGNAT for IPv4 but a publically routable IPv6 delegated subnet? If so, sure, what I wrote depends only on the IPv6 delegated subnet. How you get your IPv4 address is not relevant to it. What I'm saying is that if you can get, say, 2001:db8:1234::/48 delegated to your router, then: 1. You would configure your LAN to have the subnet 2001:db8:1234:1::/64 2. You would configure the webserver on your LAN to have a static IP like 2001:db8:1234:1::1 3. You would add a firewall rule in your router on the WAN interface to allow incoming TCP traffic with destination [2001:db8:1234:1::1]:443 . This rule would have higher precedence than the default rule that blocks all incoming traffic). At this point, anyone in the world who attempts to reach 2001:db8:1234:1::1 will reach your ISP, which will route it to your router's WAN interface (because the ISP delegated the prefix to your router), which will allow the packet to cross from WAN to LAN because of the firewall rule, which will then route it to your webserver.

gary_0 4y ago

This answer is what every argument about IPv6 and NAT boils down to: they say "NAT" but really mean "firewall". In my opinion, using NAT for IPv6 networks is just a false sense of security to make you think LAN nodes are more protected because their address numbers look different, when all you're really trying to say is "don't route to this node from outside".

dopp0 4y ago
why it would be a 'false' sense of security if it's not exposed? I don't seem to get it as 'security through obscurity' at all. sincere question, I'm not a network guy.

redblacktree 4y ago

I'm not a networking guy. Do you think that approach would work for a device behind CG-NAT? (i.e. route the IPv6 address over the WAN, rather than port forwarding; which I can't do because of the CG-NAT)

Arnavion 4y ago
You mean you have CGNAT for IPv4 but a publically routable IPv6 delegated subnet? If so, sure, what I wrote depends only on the IPv6 delegated subnet. How you get your IPv4 address is not relevant to it. What I'm saying is that if you can get, say, 2001:db8:1234::/48 delegated to your router, then: 1. You would configure your LAN to have the subnet 2001:db8:1234:1::/64 2. You would configure the webserver on your LAN to have a static IP like 2001:db8:1234:1::1 3. You would add a firewall rule in your router on the WAN interface to allow incoming TCP traffic with destination [2001:db8:1234:1::1]:443 . This rule would have higher precedence than the default rule that blocks all incoming traffic). At this point, anyone in the world who attempts to reach 2001:db8:1234:1::1 will reach your ISP, which will route it to your router's WAN interface (because the ISP delegated the prefix to your router), which will allow the packet to cross from WAN to LAN because of the firewall rule, which will then route it to your webserver.