Make UPNP enabled by default?

[Basiley]

"is see no problem in problem" is just as hilarious as newspapers/e-news.
its could bring interesting alternative to UPnP itself, as long as HTLM5-specified "WebServices" will fixed/updated and re-enabled back.
and plenty of web-browser applets for similar purpose will re-surface quickly.
for quick examples, check some Opera Unity widgets.

[1715176041]

1715176041

[1715176041]

1715176041

[1715176041]

1715176041

[Theo]

I have no statistics on routers and which % have UPnP enabled by default. Do you?

We did a test with 40 random NAT users in Germany, out of which 10% had UPnP enabled.

[Man From The Future]

The important part there is Germany. Try, for example, in Britain, and almost any BT users will have it enabled, as their "Home Hub" routers have it by default.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

This doesnt help or hinder bitcoin in anyway, but in the future you are far less likely to find a router that supports it inherently.

"the future"? You mean when IPv6 has been introduced everywhere and UPNP is no longer needed?

I don't think that IPv6 will invalidate NAT and therefore UPNP.
There are many people who like to have a closed network behind a NATed firewall. I belong to these people.

I know a little about network security, and nobody can tell me that giving IPv6 address to every machine in the house is safe. Because it isn't.
The NAT-way, where all machines in a subnetwork are protected by additional firewall, is simply better.

[Nesetalis]

you dont need nat to run a firewall. For instance, my network we have 6 IP addresses, 3 of which go to specific computers, 2 go to internal nats to rout to the individual computers, but it is all behind a single firewall.

Nat is not necessary.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

you dont need nat to run a firewall. For instance, my network we have 6 IP addresses, 3 of which go to specific computers, 2 go to internal nats to rout to the individual computers, but it is all behind a single firewall.

Nat is not necessary.

You are probably correct, however in many cases still like the NAT-way better than single IP for everything.
There are some small specialized devices that simply don't neet their own external IP address.

Also, there is the security-by-obscurity concern. Nobody needs to know how many devices exactly is in my network.

[Nesetalis]

why shouldnt a small device have its own IP? there is absolutely no reason to add the extra complexity of a nat. The only times when something like that is useful, is when you are letting two isolated networks touch, say, an intranet in a buisness and the internet. IPv6 allows enough addresses for every computer, toaster, person and cellphone to have a handful of IP addresses. The only reason to put up a nat, is if you are running a separate network, which yes there are reasons for it, but the average user would never need or want a NAT.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

IPv6 allows enough addresses for every computer, toaster, person and cellphone to have a handful of IP addresses.

But why would i want my toaster to have an external IP address ?
This is just potential another unnecessary security risk.

I want all devices in my network (except servers) to be completely invisible from outside. I do not want _ANY_ interaction between the outside world and these devices. Security concerns.
Therefore i find "ip-for-your-toaster" idea foolish.

[Nesetalis]

again, firewall != nat.
your home network would be behind a firewall, so no risk, unless you have a really bad firewall.

[Man From The Future]

IP for me toaster, why?

I hardly want to make toast in my house while away from my house...

[Basiley]

actually, "larger address space" is only one [from many]IPv6 advantages over IPv4, like transparent/seamless encryption[say buy-bye to IPSec armchair], hierarchy architecture.
point is both UPnP was ALREADY abused by feds and corporate spies for intel gathering, for years, like they do with flash traffic or binary downstram.

[Schleicher]

But why would i want my toaster to have an external IP address ?
This is just potential another unnecessary security risk.

Well, nobody is forcing you to assign global addresses to all devices.
In ipv6 you have also "unique local adresses" that only work locally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address

[jgarzik]

I see a whole lot of handwaving in this thread, and very little substance.  But Mike makes a relevant point,

UPnP is a de-facto standard that's used by virtually all p2p software. The fact that it's even an option puts Bitcoin behind apps like Skype in terms of UI simplicity. It's definitely worth enabling it by default, at minimum.

The relevant question to me is:  what widely used software enables UPNP by default?

If UPNP is enabled by default on widely used software, as your post seems to indicate, then it seems reasonable that bitcoin may follow suit.  I know plenty of P2P software supports UPNP, but what about default-on?

[theymos]

The only software I know of that enables UPnP by default actually requires the port to be open in order to work properly. Bitcoin does not. I don't think it's right for the program to donate resources by default.

In the future perhaps there will be a first-run screen asking, "Do you want to help the network?". If the user accepts, run UPnP and become a full node / hub.