Hi On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:12:54PM +0000, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > What annoys me more if the fact that AVM (and they are not the only one -- > see Technicolor & others) naively believes that NAT44 offered some > security by preventing inbound connections... This means that there is NO > open connectivity between two X/Box behind a closed AVM CPE... Hence X/Box > has no choice and is smart enough to fall back in the legacy NAT44 mode > with a TURN (or in this case Teredo) to bypass NAT. A very nice > opportunity to run man-in-the-middle attack on a foreign ground.
I'm not sure what NAT44 has to do with it. The point is that there is *native* IPv6 and the XBox insists on preferring Teredo - and the AVM box blocks Teredo if it has native IPv6, because there is no real use in permitting an "tunnel IPv6 around the IPv4-only router!" protocol when there *is* a perfectly good IPv6-capable router around... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279