[mythtv] Proposed change to Network Communications

Brian J. Murrell brian at interlinx.bc.ca
Wed Mar 8 12:36:15 UTC 2017


While I generally agree with your assessment and concerns over the
security implications of transitioning from "NAT security" (for
whatever that's worth) to everyone/thing having globally routed IP
addresses, I think this is a generally much bigger problem than just
MythTV.  That then begs the question of whether we should cripple the
out-of-the-box functionality of MythTV (and indeed, everything in the
more general sense!) because of it.

I think one of the "features" of IPv6 is that it is supposed to "just
work".  Plug your things into the network and they should just work
without having to configure addresses, networks, or anything else.

We'd be kind of breaking that model by making people have to "turn on"
IPv6 on MythTV.  And even then, how many people doing that, that
wouldn't otherwise know about the security implications would actually
understand them?

You are right that the security implications of globally routing all-
the-thingz is going to have to be realized and properly dealt with. 
But this applies to just about every device in a person's network.  Is
making MythTV more difficult to use to try to mitigate just this one
occurrence of (many of) this problem really the right choice?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-dev/attachments/20170308/e209b84c/attachment.sig>

More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list