[mythtv] Proposed change to Network Communications

Karl Dietz dekarl at spaetfruehstuecken.org
Wed Mar 8 18:30:51 UTC 2017

On 08.03.2017 13:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> security implications of transitioning from "NAT security" (for

this is the point. "transition from some security to no security"

There is a perimeter device that currently implement IPv4 perimeter
security with a method that goes by the name "IPv4 NAT Firewall" or
similar. (lets not get into details)
When the provider of this perimeter device now implements IPv6 its up
to them to also implement some IPv6 perimeter security. Maybe with a
"real firewall" or whatever.

If the provider of the perimeter devices decides that "the customers
devices are fair game for everyone" you should consider how you want to
react to that. Maybe throw their device out, reduce the fees due to not 
delivering some service (whats in your contract?) or quit the contract 
early due to important reasons without paying the rest of the contract

In any case it is not something that we can fix in our code.


More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list