TID: FMail-W32 2.2.0.0   
   RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes   
   TZUTC: 0200   
   CHRS: CP850 2   
   MSGID: 2:280/5555 6434155d   
   REPLY: 2:5005/49 642f0211   
   Hello Victor,   
      
   On Friday April 07 2023 00:25, you wrote to me:   
      
    MV>> Please eleborate...   
      
    VS> The Transmission torrent client, and the syncthing file   
    VS> synchronization utility can use the UPnP protocol to request a   
    VS> firewall to pass *IPv4* incoming traffic (and create a port porwarding   
    VS> for IPv4 NAT). They cannot however (at least to my knowledge) use UPnP   
    VS> or any other protocol to request a router to open a hole for incoming   
    VS> traffic in an *IPv6* firewall.   
      
   I see. Or so I think. You ask for some kind of "IPv6 equivalent" for UPnP. But   
   why would you want that? UpNP is a questionable idea anyway. For IPv4 it   
   creates an entry in de NAT table and as a side effect creates a hole in the   
   firewall.   
      
   But why would you need that for IPv6?   
      
   For IPv6 there (normally) is no NAT, so no need to create an entry in a NAT   
   table. In IPv6 avery device has a Unique Global Address, so one can simply   
   create pinholes in advance as needed for the address in question.   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303   
    * Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/0 19/10 90/1 103/705 104/117 105/81 106/201 123/131   
   SEEN-BY: 124/5016 153/757 7715 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 6 226/30   
   SEEN-BY: 227/114 229/110 111 112 113 206 307 317 400 424 426 428 452   
   SEEN-BY: 229/470 550 664 700 240/1120 5832 250/1 266/512 280/464 5003   
   SEEN-BY: 280/5006 5555 282/1038 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 317/3 320/219   
   SEEN-BY: 322/757 341/66 234 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58 633/267   
   SEEN-BY: 633/280 281 410 412 418 420 509 712/848 770/1 5019/40 5020/545   
   SEEN-BY: 5020/1042 5053/58   
   PATH: 280/5555 464 633/280 229/426