[ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On 23/10/19 10:41, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 14:26, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/10/19 13:18, Gert Doering wrote:
>> [....]
>>>
>>> With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good
>>> enough anyway.  End users want lots of TV channels, the big content 
>>> networks are providing.  Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS
>>> today, which is very NAT friendly.  CGN in the eyeball ISP world can 
>>> easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we 
>>> have enough IPv4 for ever...
>>>
>>> Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever.  But since
>>> the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal 
>>> household anyway, it's lost anyway.
>>
>> It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6
>> ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of
>> the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6.
>>
>> e.g., see:
>> https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/tip/Ensuring-P2P-apps-dont-cause-network-performance-issues-with-IPv6
>>
> 
> Isn’t this a we broke the network so we must further break the network scenario ?

?


> If you remove PAT a lot of the UPnP needs go away and  can be replaced by a mix of straightforward fw rules and stateful peeking like PAT residential CPEs do already. 

At the end of the day, there's not much of a difference. In the IPv4
world you map external ports to internal ports. And in the IPv6 world
you need to punch holes into the firewall, even when the port is not
translated.


> Going forward there’s nothing really stoping UPnP being implemented over IPv6 anyway is there ? 

There isn't, indeed. But in many cases support is simply not there.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492