[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Dirk Munk]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2016-09-21 kl. 22:47, skrev 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.
>
> Some routers can port forward to another port, some always
> port forward using the same port number. In the later case
> you have to have alternate ports on some servers if they
> have the same service. Like alternates to 80 for web servers.
>
> But all this discussion about servers behind NAT'et networks
> probably is about 1 NAT'ed network out of 10.000. Most users
> simply "surf the net" and read their mail and are happy. :-)
> And they could not care less about IPv6... :-)
>

True, and from my own experience I know that people don't even know that 
they have IPv6 and are using it.

>
>
>>
>> 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
>