Topic: Make UPNP enabled by default? (Read 3381 times)

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.

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



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?

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

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.

IP for me toaster, why?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

Where I live I think routers come with it enabled by default because we have a SEVERE lack of IP addresses (for example, I cannot download anything on file sharing sites, because someone with my IP is always downloading there already... even when the only machine active on my network is my own).


And... seriously, you people that suggest that we need to ask the user "x" or "y" do not realize that 99.99% of the people in the world will never understand the question.

I am computer savy since I was a child (my dad wanted me to become the next bill gates or something... he taught me how to program when I was 8 even...), and for good part of my life, I believed everyone else was a idiot.

When I realized that only me understood those kind of questions coming from software, I noticed the software was wrong, not the users.

You cannot ASSUME people know stuff. They don't.

Not even the WASD keys when designing a FPS, research data showed that one of the reasons that it is popular only among "hardcore" is that only "hardcode" know how to control the character, with most games assuming you will use the most popular controls, and normal people cannot even walk forward in the game.


If you ask someone about port forwarding, NAT, UPNP, firewall, whatever, they will only think: "Wha?"
If you try to explain, say it is a security risk but is a nice feature, people will think: "Hell no! I do not want another virus!" even if the risk is minor or negligible and have nothing to do with virus. (or worse: I know people that really believe that hackers in a chat can figure the color of your underwear)

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

Anyway even in that case, having it enabled by default in bitcoin is not a problem.

er, except most routers do not come with upnp enabled by default since it is a security hole, meaning.... for the non power user, upnp isnt going to work? :p

or two different builds, entitled "download this for easy use/nobrainers" and "reasonably-hardened/tweaked for power users".

But the point is that UPnP doesn't address power users that know how to open ports manually. It is only useful for people that want to simply start the executable and use it.

And indeed, in a couple of years it won't be needed anymore. However, as long as we have IPv4 and NAT-uglyness, this problem exists. Code can always be removed.

my point wasnt that it shouldnt be in the client and enabled by default, just that its a badly designed interface that may go the way of the dinosaur in the next couple years and not to rely upon it. Part of the standard install should be saying "hey, user, open X and Y port in your firewall." OR asking which port the user wants to use and broadcasting that to the network.