[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

address and port translation (NAT) no longer required in IPv6 -- but...




On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:

On Lu, 26 dec 11, 21:39:27, Victor Nitu wrote:
On 12/26/2011 08:00 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:

This is one reason I welcome the switch to IPv6.

Just out of curiosity: can you be more specific on this issue? (please
excuse me for being a bit off-topic).

As far as I understand the main benefit and driver for adopting IPv6 is
that there are enough addresses for every host in your lan to have its
own public IP address, which completely eliminates (the need for)
masquerading and (D)NAT.

Hope this explains,
Andrei

It eliminates the need for masquerading and port translation, but it does not eliminate the need for a proper firewall.

An (IPv4) router/NAT-box has the unavoidable side-effect of not allowing any incoming (Internet -> LAN) connections unless they have been explicitly programmed by the user. Most people consider this to be a "good thing".

That's not automatic anymore with IPv6. But it easily can (and should, by default) be programmed into any IPv6 router.

(Sigh!) ;-\ Now if somebody would just manufacture and sell an inexpensive IPv6-capable SOHO router... /-; (sigh!)

Hope that explains (a little more),
Rick


Reply to: