nanog mailing list archives
Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
From: Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:10:26 -0400
On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us> wrote:
Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry.
You've said this before, and it is still an absurdly over-broad statement. Many security professionals have deployed enterprise firewalls to their satisfaction without NAT-PT. We had this debate, what, a month ago? Your position hasn't changed. No new use cases have emerged. Are we done here? Lee
Current thread:
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls, (continued)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Seth Mos (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Enno Rey (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Nick Hilliard (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Lee Howard (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Fernando Gont (Apr 21)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Brandon Ross (Apr 21)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Enno Rey (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Doug Barton (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Enno Rey (Apr 18)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls Doug Barton (Apr 19)
- Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls William Herrin (Apr 18)