Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

[John Osmon <josmon () rigozsaurus com>]

This is falling outside of the IPv6/RFC-1918 discussion, so
I'll only answer questions with questions...  If there's need for
a real discussion, I'll let someone change the subject, and continue
on...

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:13AM +0100, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
[...]
> > The flip side shows up when Nintendo creates a cool new protocol for the Wii
> > that requires Internet access.  You Wii won't be able to participate
> > until you teach your proxy/NAT box about the new protocol.
>
> What's the difference to firewalling without NAT? (Noone should connect
> their (home) network without at least inbound filtering) There I have to
> wait for the firewall box to support connection tracking for the new
> (broken) protocol.

Why do I need an "Internet breaker" (firewall) to do connection
tracking?  Doesn't the host computer's software stack do that when
an inbound packet arrives?  Why do I need a separate box to do that
work with I trust my host?


> If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs,
> do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their
> firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?

That's an issue of trusting the host...



Note:  All questions are hypothetical.  No packets were harmed in the
production of this hyperbolic response...