3 ms·

Well, depending on the type of NAT, isn't the end effect for certain variants that non-communicating services on local ports are rendered unaddressable from the

by ethbro 12y ago

Well, depending on the type of NAT, isn't the end effect for certain variants that non-communicating services on local ports are rendered unaddressable from the other side? I believe that's what GP was referring to. (Disclaimer: can't remember which variant of cone/full this is categorized as -- I thought there was a really useful "Current state of NAT in practice" blog post that was linked a few months ago)

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
Not really. The non-addressability comes from not globally routed ("private") addresses on the "internal" network: They may prevent someone on the other side of the planet from reaching those "internal" hosts on your local network, but that's orthogonal to NAT: You can do NAT between globally routed addresses (which thus would be reachable directly ... unless there is a (stateful) firewall preventing that!), and also, just because those addresses aren't routed globally, doesn't mean your ISP (or whoever is connected to the "outside" link of your NAT gateway) couldn't send you packets directly addressed to your internet network that your router/NAT gateway would just forward to your local network (once again, unless you have a (stateful) firewall that blocks those packets). Now, it so happens that dynamic NAT also needs to do connection tracking in order to be able to map addresses back and forth, just like a stateful firewall does, and that therefore, it's easy to also implement stateful packet filtering on top of the same connection tracking state - however, there is no need to do NAT in order to do the connection tracking and the filtering based on that, you could have the exact same stateful packet filtering with the exact same security properties, just without messing with the address fields of the packets and all the bad things that result from that.
- HackinOut 12y ago
  From a practical aspect, IPv6 (and the removal of NAT) can't come alone: standalone stateful firewalls need to be generalized as well, to replace the way they are embedded in the NAT implementation inside people's modem/routers nowadays.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    Hu? I don't get what you are trying to say ... yes, one usually should have a stateful packetfilter at the uplink, with IPv6 just as with IPv4, with NAT just as without, what is your point?
    - HackinOut 12y ago
      There is a difference between theory and practice: there is no specific use of stateful firewalls in today's IPv4 mr. nobody home router (i.e. most of the routers do not use the --state option of iptables). If we move to IPv6 only, ISPs need to (and will) use --state (or equivalent). The way mr. nobody has a sort of "stateful firewall" nowadays is actually thanks to the popular use of Masquerading NAT (i.e. iptables -t nat -j MASQUERADE). So jackweirdy is kind of right "NAT" (in practice) as become a pillar of internet security, in spite of itself.

by ethbro 12y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

Not really. The non-addressability comes from not globally routed ("private") addresses on the "internal" network: They may prevent someone on the other side of the planet from reaching those "internal" hosts on your local network, but that's orthogonal to NAT: You can do NAT between globally routed addresses (which thus would be reachable directly ... unless there is a (stateful) firewall preventing that!), and also, just because those addresses aren't routed globally, doesn't mean your ISP (or whoever is connected to the "outside" link of your NAT gateway) couldn't send you packets directly addressed to your internet network that your router/NAT gateway would just forward to your local network (once again, unless you have a (stateful) firewall that blocks those packets). Now, it so happens that dynamic NAT also needs to do connection tracking in order to be able to map addresses back and forth, just like a stateful firewall does, and that therefore, it's easy to also implement stateful packet filtering on top of the same connection tracking state - however, there is no need to do NAT in order to do the connection tracking and the filtering based on that, you could have the exact same stateful packet filtering with the exact same security properties, just without messing with the address fields of the packets and all the bad things that result from that.

HackinOut 12y ago
From a practical aspect, IPv6 (and the removal of NAT) can't come alone: standalone stateful firewalls need to be generalized as well, to replace the way they are embedded in the NAT implementation inside people's modem/routers nowadays.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Hu? I don't get what you are trying to say ... yes, one usually should have a stateful packetfilter at the uplink, with IPv6 just as with IPv4, with NAT just as without, what is your point?
  - HackinOut 12y ago
    There is a difference between theory and practice: there is no specific use of stateful firewalls in today's IPv4 mr. nobody home router (i.e. most of the routers do not use the --state option of iptables). If we move to IPv6 only, ISPs need to (and will) use --state (or equivalent). The way mr. nobody has a sort of "stateful firewall" nowadays is actually thanks to the popular use of Masquerading NAT (i.e. iptables -t nat -j MASQUERADE). So jackweirdy is kind of right "NAT" (in practice) as become a pillar of internet security, in spite of itself.