Without firewalls, internet is not very secure, regardless of protocol used.
On 07/04/2016 11:41 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Jared Mauch wrote: > >> Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has >> created and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most >> devices are poorly implemented without safety in mind) folks on all >> sides. > > Are you saying, without NAT or something like that to restrict > reachable ports, the Internet, regardless of whether it is with > IPv4 or IPv6, is not very secure? > > With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT > boxes to restrict port forwarding. > >> The fact that I go to a hotel and that AT&T mobility have limited >> internet reach is a technology problem that we all must work to fix. > > Want to run a server at the hotel? > > IP mobility helps you, if you have a home agent at your home and > you can use IP over UDP/TCP over IP as mobility tunnel. > > Masataka Ohta >> >> >> Jared Mauch >> >>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:49 PM, Masataka Ohta >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> And, to applications running over TCP/UDP, UPnP capable legacy NATs >>> are transparent, if host TCP/UDP are modified to perform reverse >>> NAT, information to do so is provided by UPnP. >> >> >> >
