On 13/02/15 14:37, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
Why a discussion to drill the firewall with very tricky things?
(it's sound to me like the same sh... stun and other legacy ipv4 horrors.)
In my opinion the firewall should be configurable (unfortunately
DTAG-speedport-series, including the hybrid-modell dsl/lte can't) by
upnp or by the user.
That's fine, and I agree in theory.
But Sony and Microsoft aren't going to just assume or enforce that, and
I don't blame them. They have to assume some proportion of devices will
be behind a firewall or NAT, and will write the code accordingly.
Done correctly, it's very little additional burden over just sending
straight UDP packets. There's really no reason for system/app vendors to
*not* implement traversal, and it doesn't harm the network.
But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes
this situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44
world, and would improve e.g. internet gaming.
