[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[David Froble]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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.

That's if you want to accept connections on the same port with multiple systems. 
  While i haven't used it, the NAT routers I've got seem to be able to select 
the in-house system based upon incoming port number, and even re-direct that to 
a specific system and alternate port number.

> 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.

I can agree.

>> 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
> 

Agree