I don't think this is inherently a problem. It's good for home routers to have sensible defaults. Blocking incoming IPv6 connections is such a thing. Opening a port in the firewall shows the same kind of intent as forwarding a port with NAT. The burden is on the router manufacturers to expose these options in a sensible way. My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port for IPv6.

Using NAT as a firewall might work but it brings it's own problems. I find the IPv6 way better.

▲

lxgr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't think this is inherently a problem. [...] My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port for IPv6.

Glad to hear that you don't have a problem with your router, but how does that relate to GPs problems with theirs?

▲

BadBadJellyBean an hour ago | parent [-]

It isn't. But It's also not an answer to GP.

The solution for them is "get a better router" because the problem is not the IPv6 protocol. Opening a port is not harder than creating a NAT forwarding and if your hardware can't do it then it's bad.

	▲	lxgr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly, and “there are a lot of bad v6 implementation CPEs out there” is an important data point worth acknowledging.