nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:29:41 +0200
On 4 July 2016 at 11:41, Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT boxes to restrict port forwarding.
Only if you by NAT mean "home network NAT". No large ISP has or will deploy a carrier NAT router that will respect UPnP. That does not scale and is a security nightmare besides. We could deploy MAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Address_and_Port (which scales) and the user could then use the belowed "end to end NAT" method on that. But why would they? MAP requires IPv6 so they already have end to end transparency using IPv6. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- IPv6 deployment excuses Mike Jones (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Marcin Cieslak (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Hugo Slabbert (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 02)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Filip Hruska (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- IPv6 deployment excuses Ca By (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Ca By (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Baldur Norddahl (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 05)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Jared Mauch (Jul 01)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Spencer Ryan (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 04)
- Re: IPv6 deployment excuses Masataka Ohta (Jul 04)