Once upon a time, Franck Martin <franck@genius.com> said:
Why don't they use IPv6 instead of uPnP?
UPnP (or something like it) is needed for any kind of firewall for some devices. At least on Xbox, some games are essentially peer-to-peer; when userA starts it up and invites friends, their Xbox becomes the game server. The other people joining the game talk directly to userA's Xbox (they don't go through a Microsoft Xbox Live server). When userA sets up the game, their Xbox sends a UPnP request to the local firewall to open up a port so outside connections can come in. It doesn't matter if there is IPv4, IPv6, NAT, etc. in play; the Xbox is saying "let the Internet talk to me on port foo for a bit". Now, the security model (or lack thereof) of UPnP can be debated, but home users are going to need something like that for peer-to-peer networking. IPv6 is supposed to bring back end-to-end networking and abolish NAT, but I think most people agree that the average home user will still need a basic statefull firewall for protection, which means there has to be a protocol for some devices to temporarily open up ports on the firewall (or there's still no end-to-end). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.