[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Scott Dorsey]

David Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
>I'm not anti-IPv6, just as I'm not anti-quadword.  But from a practical 
>perspective, I have to ask, how many people, organizations, etc; behind a IPv4 
>NAT router really need the extended address space.  Right now, as you state, you 
>can forward any ports to any device on today's NAT routers.  So, what's the 
>rush, for this issue anyway, for IPv6?

If you have a dozen computers in a NATted subnet that want to connect out,
everything is great.  They can all share one address.

The problem is when you have more than one computer that wants to accept
connections in.   Then it all falls apart.

Since NAT has become almost universal for home systems in the US, a lot of
systems now rely on horrible cheesy workarounds to deal with this.  It would
be very good to get out of that situation.

>Now, where I do see a problem, and IPv6 will not address it if I understand it 
>correctly, is that if some device can be accessed from outside, and it's not so 
>secure, it's inside your router and can get at the rest of the devices on the 
>internal network.

Yes, but this is the case whether you are running IPv6 or IPv4.  If it's not
so secure, don't allow incoming access to it.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."