• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
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 Aug 6, 2012, 12:57 AM

    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 Aug 7, 2012, 6:31 AM

      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 Aug 7, 2012, 11:46 PM

        @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 Aug 8, 2012, 9:09 PM

          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 Aug 14, 2012, 3:05 PM

            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 Aug 14, 2012, 3:28 PM

              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
              • J
                jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                last edited by Aug 14, 2012, 4:30 PM

                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 Aug 14, 2012, 8:23 PM

                  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
                  8 out of 8
                  • First post
                    8/8
                    Last post
                  Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                    This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                    consent.not_received