logoalt Hacker News

Sohcahtoa82yesterday at 11:31 PM6 repliesview on HN

This is going to depend on the router and on IP distribution.

My ISP does not give me an IPv6 address, only a single IPv6 which all my network devices have to NAT through.

NAT is not intended to be a security feature, for sure, but it creates security as a side effect. If I start up a web server on one of my devices, I know that it is unreachable from the Internet unless I go out of my way to set a port forward on my router.

But...if my ISP decides to start handing out IPv6, that can change. If each of my devices gets an Internet routable IPv6 address, at that point, that security-as-a-side-effect is not guaranteed unless my router has a default-deny firewall. I would hope that any routers would ship with that.

But if my ISP still gives me only a single IPv6 address and I'm still needing to use NAT, then I'm guaranteed to still effectively have a "default deny" inbound firewall policy.


Replies

tadfishertoday at 12:40 AM

> If each of my devices gets an Internet routable IPv6 address, at that point, that security-as-a-side-effect is not guaranteed unless my router has a default-deny firewall. I would hope that any routers would ship with that.

They usually do, and they also ship with the most wonderful technology ever specified within a 67 MB compressed archive [0]: UPnP! Now your attacker's job is to convince you to initiate an outgoing connection, which automatically forwards an incoming port to your device behind the NAT and bypassing the router's default-deny firewall! Nothing has ever gone wrong with a zero-configuration port-forwarding protocol from the 1990s rammed through the ISO!

[0]: https://openconnectivity.org/developer/specifications/upnp-r...

show 1 reply
Gigachadtoday at 1:08 AM

Every router I’ve ever used has blocked incoming connections on v6 exactly the same as on v4. Really the only difference is you can have multiple devices on your network allowed to receive on the same port if you want.

show 2 replies
Dagger2today at 1:05 AM

So, what side effect of NAT is making your server unreachable here? It sounds like you could turn the NAT off and it would be exactly as unreachable as it was when the NAT was on.

(Just to double-check... have you tried DHCPv6-PD? ISPs will normally only give your router a single IP on its WAN interface, or sometimes no IP on the WAN. Getting the routed prefix for the LAN-side networks involves doing a PD request, which is separate from requesting the WAN IP.)

show 1 reply
betabytoday at 12:06 AM

> My ISP does not give me an IPv6 address, only a single IPv6 which all my network devices have to NAT through.

Interesting how that works in your case. Is your router gives your devices IPv6 from fc00::/7 and then NAT them? It would be a rather rare case.

globular-toasttoday at 7:15 AM

What ISP gives you a single IPv6 address? That's incredibly comical. An ISP would have at least 79 billion billion billion addresses and they are giving you one?!

If I run a webserver on my network I know it's unreachable from the internet unless I specifically allow inbound traffic to it at my firewall. I get to use the actual security features with sensible terminology instead of silly things like "port forward".

tucnaktoday at 5:53 AM

> my ISP still gives me only a single IPv6 address

This is criminal, and also incredibly uncommon. You should talk to your ISP, it's most definitely a misconfiguration of some kind, if not deliberate torture. Normally you get a /56 at least because there are so many and they cost nothing.

show 1 reply