Re: address and port translation (NAT) no longer required in IPv6 -- but...
OK I'm a novice, but it seems from my perspective that having adequate
addresses is only the tech part of the issue. Verizon and other large
ISP's don't want home owners to create servers accessible from outside
their homes. If they find out you are doing so they will insist on
charging you the _much_ higher "business" rate. Isn't that why they block
and/or watch standard ports?
Keith Ostertag
> 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: