UPnP/IPv6 support in home routers?

[Fernando Gont]

Kristian,

I see no reason for which they should disappear. Actually, quite the
opposite; we keep connecting more and more crap to the net (the so called
IoT), which clearly cannot defend itself.

The "principle of least privilege" applies to connectivity, too.

Thanks!
Fernando






On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kristian McColm <
Kristian.McColm at rci.rogers.com> wrote:

> Corporate and/or specific network requirements notwithstanding, in my
> opinion this is just another example of why in IPv6, firewalls in general
> could/should be retired. If the end user device is required to be
> responsible for it’s own security, it can open the necessary ports via
> whatever firewall API it provides to applications running on it.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* ipv6-ops-bounces+kristian.mccolm=rci.rogers.com at lists.cluenet.de
> <ipv6-ops-bounces+kristian.mccolm=rci.rogers.com at lists.cluenet.de> on
> behalf of Doug McIntyre <merlyn at geeks.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 11, 2017 10:22:39 AM
> *To:* ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> *Subject:* Re: UPnP/IPv6 support in home routers?
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the
> basis of the terms set out at www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice
>
>
>
> Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et réception de courriels
> se fait strictement suivant les modalités énoncées dans l’avis publié à www.rogers.com/aviscourriel
>
> ------------------------------
>



-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20171211/4c1dc0a1/attachment.html