| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
arneb
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: IPv6 Support |
 |
|
Hi!
As i need to get a upnp Daemon with IPv6 support running on a linux machine, i wonder what steps would need to be taken to reword miniupnpd to be able to run with a dual stack ?
After looking at the Spec, It seems to me, that the messages for IPv6 Upnp are not very different then the ones for ipv4...
Any idea how difficult this will be ?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
miniupnp
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 1592
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: Re: IPv6 Support |
|
|
| arneb wrote: | Hi!
As i need to get a upnp Daemon with IPv6 support running on a linux machine, i wonder what steps would need to be taken to reword miniupnpd to be able to run with a dual stack ?
After looking at the Spec, It seems to me, that the messages for IPv6 Upnp are not very different then the ones for ipv4...
Any idea how difficult this will be ?? |
I need to look at the netfilter API to see how easy it will be...
One thing I dont understand about IPv6 UPnP is how it needs to be practically implemented ?
on which multicast IP address are SSDP messages sent ?
_________________
Main miniUPnP author.
https://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arneb
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: IPv6 Support |
|
|
| miniupnp wrote: |
I need to look at the netfilter API to see how easy it will be...
One thing I dont understand about IPv6 UPnP is how it needs to be practically implemented ?
on which multicast IP address are SSDP messages sent ? |
For now, most people won't need it. I need to use it for an IPv6 only Homegateway prototype. But i am sure, there will be the real need for it in the next few years. It is no problem for us to implement it, i was just wondering what has to be done...
for SSDP messages FF02::C should be used, according to the document at
www.upnp.org/download/Annex%20A%20-%20IPv6.doc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miniupnp
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 1592
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: IPv6 Support |
|
|
| arneb wrote: | | miniupnp wrote: |
I need to look at the netfilter API to see how easy it will be...
One thing I dont understand about IPv6 UPnP is how it needs to be practically implemented ?
on which multicast IP address are SSDP messages sent ? |
For now, most people won't need it. I need to use it for an IPv6 only Homegateway prototype. But i am sure, there will be the real need for it in the next few years. It is no problem for us to implement it, i was just wondering what has to be done...
for SSDP messages FF02::C should be used, according to the document at
www.upnp.org/download/Annex%20A%20-%20IPv6.doc |
I will try to do something thanks to this document... but not until the end of my vacations in 3 weeks. In the meantime, you could try to adapt the code to IPv6 if you have the needed knowledge 
_________________
Main miniUPnP author.
https://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arneb
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will try to convert the socket calls, etc to ipv6. Or to be more specific, make the socket stuff Dual Stack capable, so it can be used in both environment (and maybe use a define to enable it at compile time).
We were a bit uncertain how to go further, but the decision that was made is that i will start porting it to IPv6 myself...
But, of course, i would appreciate any help you can give, especially on the xml side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cnepveu
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
So, has IPv6 support been added to miniupnp ?
What's the status up 'till now ?
Thank you,
Charles Nepveu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miniupnp
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 1592
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cnepveu wrote: | Hello,
So, has IPv6 support been added to miniupnp ?
What's the status up 'till now ?
|
I haven't worked on IPv6 and had no news of arneb work.
_________________
Main miniUPnP author.
https://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cnepveu
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay,
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclight
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you need IPv6? It unsupports NAT by design because of huge address space. So what's practical point?
_________________
WBR, Nuclear Lightning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nlsp
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclight wrote: | | Why do you need IPv6? ... what's practical point? |
I got a Vista notebook connected through a wlan-eth L2 switch to a mixed v4/v6 network. After ipv6 autoconfiguration, windows claims to see a second network through the access point and labels it "Unidentified network (accesspoint-name), Acces: local & internet". Being unidentified, windows considers it untrusted and turns off network discovery, filesharing and such.
Now, having a UPnP responder on the ipv6 gateway address *might* make the network customizable, as such could be labeled private, and with luck may make my printer visible again. Printing is practical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclight
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think this will ever help. UPnP may be defined for IPv6, printers etc., but not for a NAT device - and miniupnp implements only this subset of UPnP, an IGD specs. Thus you should rather try to get support at Microsoft or may be some Vista forums...
_________________
WBR, Nuclear Lightning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nlsp
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclight wrote: | | I don't think this will ever help. UPnP may be defined for IPv6, printers etc., but not for a NAT device - and miniupnp implements only this subset of UPnP, an IGD specs. Thus you should rather try to get support at Microsoft or may be some Vista forums... |
Well, I think it may just work and has nothing to do with NAT.
Simply providing a name and uuid should be enough for Vista to identify the "Unidentified Network" and remember settings that a user applies to it.
Actually, an even more restricted subset seems best. I wouldn't want to publish my local IP addresses and port forwarding rules over an IPV6 connection without tight access control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miniupnp
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 1592
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miniupnp
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 1592
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miniupnp
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 1592
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
