On Monday, July 4, 2016, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','baldur.norddahl@gmail.com');>> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:41, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT boxes to restrict port forwarding.
Only if you by NAT mean "home network NAT". No large ISP has or will deploy a carrier NAT router that will respect UPnP. That does not scale and is a security nightmare besides.
We could deploy MAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Address_and_Port (which scales) and the user could then use the belowed "end to end NAT" method on that. But why would they? MAP requires IPv6 so they already have end to end transparency using IPv6.
Regards,
Baldur
Always so funny how people love talking how great MAP scales, yet it has never been deployed at scale. 464XLAT and ds-lite have been deployed at real scale, so has 6RD. MAP is like beta max. Technically great, but reality is poor.