address and port translation (NAT) no longer required in IPv6 -- but...

On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:

> On Lu, 26 dec 11, 21:39:27, Victor Nitu wrote:
>> On 12/26/2011 08:00 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>
>>> This is one reason I welcome the switch to IPv6.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity: can you be more specific on this issue?  
>> (please
>> excuse me for being a bit off-topic).
>
> As far as I understand the main benefit and driver for adopting IPv6  
> is
> that there are enough addresses for every host in your lan to have its
> own public IP address, which completely eliminates (the need for)
> masquerading and (D)NAT.
>
> Hope this explains,
> Andrei

It eliminates the need for masquerading and port translation, but it  
does not eliminate the need for a proper firewall.

An (IPv4) router/NAT-box has the unavoidable side-effect of not  
allowing any incoming (Internet -> LAN) connections unless they have  
been explicitly programmed by the user. Most people consider this to  
be a "good thing".

That's not automatic anymore with IPv6.  But it easily can (and  
should, by default) be programmed into any IPv6 router.

(Sigh!) ;-\ Now if somebody would just manufacture and sell an  
inexpensive IPv6-capable SOHO router... /-;  (sigh!)

Hope that explains (a little more),
Rick