IPv6 deployment excuses

Tue Jul 5 02:30:42 UTC 2016

Or how about we just avoid anything that uses the terms like "Mappings" and
"NAT" and speed the adoption of IPv6 everywhere which already solves all of
these problems.

*Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan at arbor.net
*Arbor Networks*
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Baldur Norddahl 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.
>>
>
> A large ISP should just set up usual NAT. In addition, the ISP
> tells its subscriber a global IP address, a private IP address
> and a small range of port numbers the subscriber can use and
> set up *static* bi-directional port forwarding.
>
> If each subscriber is allocated 64 ports, effective address
> space is 1000 times more than that of IPv4, which should be
> large enough.
>
> Then, if a subscriber want transparency, he can set up his
> home router make use of the bi-directional port forwarding
> and his host reverse translation by nested port forwarding.
>
> That does not scale and is a
>> security nightmare besides.
>>
>
> It is merely because you think you must do it dynamically.
>
> But, if you want to run a server at fixed IP address
> and port, port forwarding must be static.
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>