Fernando, sorry but we’ll have to agree to disagree. I personally see stateful firewalls as a pain point. They don’t do a very good job of tracking socket states and often cause packet loss for this reason, they are not well aware of the true socket state, they just try to replicate it based on sniffing, which doesn’t work very well for stateless protocols I might add. Of course all this sniffing is something the forefathers of the internet never intended us to need to do. I would suggest you can always implement filters and other security mechanisms on your own devices, which should be done as a matter of best practice regardless. I certainly wouldn’t want to rely on some ‘crap’ CPE given to me by my service provider to protect my end devices from all the other ‘crap’ out there 😊
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Fernando Gont <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 4:00:17 PM To: Kristian McColm Cc: [email protected]; Fernando Gont Subject: Re: UPnP/IPv6 support in home routers? The crap doesn't get fixed because that's the software development we are used to. Windows 10 was Windows '95 in the '90s. So give the IoT stuff 15-20 years to get to a sensible quality/state/security and/or enough widespread trouble/exploitation. Pragmatically speaking, people will connect that crap to the 'net... and the "less connected" such devices are, the better. So, please, don't remove FWs. :-) Cheers, Fernando On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Kristian McColm <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: And therein lies the root of the problem.. the ‘crap’ never gets fixed because it has the firewall isolating it, but this causes problems for devices and applications which are not ‘crap.’ I realize this is more idealistic than pragmatic, but we will have much smoother network integration if we don’t have to deal with the many problems that so called stateful firewalls bring along with them. Now that IPv6 is set to do away with (P/N)AT, we’re halfway there. ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Fernando Gont <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:43:27 PM To: Kristian McColm Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Fernando Gont Subject: Re: UPnP/IPv6 support in home routers? 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Doug McIntyre <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:22:39 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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<http://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 <http://www.rogers.com/aviscourriel> ________________________________ -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> || [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ________________________________ 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<http://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 <http://www.rogers.com/aviscourriel> ________________________________ -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> || [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ________________________________ 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<http://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 <http://www.rogers.com/aviscourriel> ________________________________
