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

Re: The argument for writing a general purpose NAT for IPv6



On 17-apr-2007, at 21:33, james woodyatt wrote:

No. I'm just trying to get active mode FTP clients and Quicktime/ RealPlayer streaming clients, which use RTCP/RTP transports, to communicate properly from the local network with servers on the IPv6 WAN the way they do today with servers on the IPv4 WAN. Maybe next month, I'll try to get more esoteric applications to work.

The end-to-end connectivity of IPv6 IS ALREADY BROKEN-- by the insistence that stateful packet filters block inbound flow initiations in factory default configurations of residential IPv6 gateways. This is *exactly* how the end-to-end connectivity of IPv4 got broken. We are all now merrily marching off to do it again to IPv6, and I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO STOP IT.

I feel slightly responsible here after writing this:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/2/14/7063

The problem is that people are now getting IPv6 connectivity without realizing it, and having everything open over v6 despite filtering efforts (yes, NAT isn't a firewall, but these people don't really know what either of these words mean anyway) is can only end badly.

However, let me propose a different direction for solving this: rather than waiting until a port number is selected, put into a control stream, then intercept that control stream, recover the port number and open up the firewall, why not simply set aside a range of port numbers for these types of purposes and let those through the firewall?

With IPv4 this wouldn't work because there has to be a mapping between an private and a public address, but with IPv6 that's not necessary.

I can see how someone may be uncomfortable with this because it means it's still possible for packets to come in from the outside to hosts on the inside, but as long as no services are present on the ports in question, that's not really an issue, except for possible IP layer exploits, but I'm pretty sure that's a thing of the '90s.

Iljitsch van Beijnum