-=> On 01-31-21 11:53, Victor Sudakov wrote to Jay Harris <=-

 VS> I have been always of the opinion that port forwarding is never needed
 VS> in IPv6 because no NAT is ever involved (and port forwarding is part of
 VS> the destination NAT technology). If you had IPv6 port forwarding (in
 VS> the IPv4 way) on some device, please surprise me!

Some consumer routers mislabel IPb6 firewall opening as "port forwarding", mine
included.  Mine came with all inblund IPv6 traffic blocked by default (good!),
but to open a port to a specific host, I have to go into "IPv6 port forwarding"
(sic) and specify the port(s) that I want to open and the interface host ID
(last 64 bits of the IPv6 address) to allow traffic for.  Or I can specify that
host as an "exposed host", which of course, disables the firewall for that
specific IPv6 address.

 VS> It is also difficult to believe that a fancy router does not have a
 VS> built-in IPv6 firewall (if a firewall is meant by "port opening").

One would hope it does, and that there's a mechanism to open ports to specific
hosts in the firewal config.

 VS> My home MikroTik hAP ac3 does not support NAT or port forwarding in
 VS> IPv6 (which is expected) but has a nice IPv6 stateful firewall with
 VS> connection tracking (in fact it's iptables inside). I have eventually
 VS> moved all my IPv6 tunneling to MikroTik and I'm very happy about it's
 VS> performance.

My router does speak of IPv6 port forwarding, but it's actually controlling the
firewall's packet filter.  


... Is fire supposed to shoot out of it like that!?
=== MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux