Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    NAPT for IPv6

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPv6
    8 Posts 7 Posters 3.8k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • P
      peteknot
      last edited by

      Hi, I've been trying to find a solution that provides one to many NAT for IPv6. I've read through the forums a lot trying to find a solution.

      http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,50546.msg269256.html#msg269256

      This topic was a good bit of information. But that only provided 1:1 NAT, not 1:n NAT. So I was wondering if there's some feature that I've missed that will give me NAPT (Network Address and Port Translation) for IPv6 under pfSense 2.1? I appreciate the help guys.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cmb
        last edited by

        Why would you want to do such a thing? NAT is bad. Some argue NAPT shouldn't even be considered, though for multi-homing small to mid sized networks it's currently your only option.

        There is no such capability at this time.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • W
          whfsdude
          last edited by

          @peteknot:

          Hi, I've been trying to find a solution that provides one to many NAT for IPv6.

          Why? What are you trying to accomplish here that you're looking for NAT in v6?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            databeestje
            last edited by

            Without any motivation the request is denied, move on. Routing works just fine.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • P
              peteknot
              last edited by

              Sorry for the late reply. I did not receive a message about updates to this post. My motivation behind a 1:N NAT for IPv6 is for security purposes. I'm working on a project and one of the requirements is to be able to obscure the network from the outside world. So 1:1 NAT (NPT) isn't an option as hosts are still identifiable. Thanks.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • G
                gderf
                last edited by

                Even though you have public IPv6 on your LAN interface and the machines behind it, the firewall is still in between those hosts and the internet, no?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • jimpJ
                  jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                  last edited by

                  Security by obscurity is no security at all. Drop the dated concept of "security" from NAT, and you'll be better off.

                  Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                  Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                  Do not Chat/PM for help!

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • E
                    Efonnes
                    last edited by

                    Regardless of NAT or no NAT, you can still firewall it so that only connections to the ports you allow through to each system will pass through the router.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • First post
                      Last post
                    Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.