On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:03:27PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:54:15AM +0000, Tom Hill wrote: > > "Dear Gateway, I am definitely not a compromised host, please open all > > ports toward me." > > But that's the whole idea of UPnP or IGD. Whether you open one port or > all of them, on request of a possibly-compromised host, is of no relevance.
I think the thinking is that since most IPv4 "home" protocols (which is really only where UPnP exists, since Enterprise class firewalls almost never want to have anything to do with it), is that most of the "home" protocols (eg. games, streaming, etc) have mostly converged to a model not expecting end-to-end connectivity, and hidden behind a NAT thing, that anything now transitioning to IPv6 will follow suit when they add that support to whatever needs to punch holes in things, instead checking in constantly with the "central server" instead of assuming end-to-end connectivity. That said, I think the IPv6 firewalls need better home connectivity support as well. I once put in a ticket to Fortinet to ask if there could be made an ACL object that tracked the prefix mask delivered via DHCP6_PD, such that we could write policies such as allow remote_ipv6_address ${PREFIX1}::1f5d:50 22 But that couldn't be impressed on the first tiers of support what-so-ever. That totally confused them to no end. Unlike my IPv4 address which almost never changes at Comcast, the IPv6 prefixes I get change on every connection.