Re: UPnP, NATs, and P2P

Bill Cox wrote:
> However, I'm no longer convinced that IPv6 will help solve the NAT
> problem.  I suspect that Cisco will continue shipping NAT enabled
> residential gateway/routers long after IPv6 is established, possibly for
> many decades.  What you and I think wont change what Cisco does, so

You don't need NAT for stateful filtering.

> there's no use arguing about what's right.  Note that they ship their
> LinkSys routers with UPnP disabled today.  UPnP otherwise would have
> solved the NAT problem.
> 
> I suspect that this situation will continue unless there's some new
> solution for NAT enabled gateways that can block unauthorized incoming
> connections yet allow legitimate ones through.  But how can a router
> know the difference?

Authentication?


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/