Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

Sat Jul 24 07:50:25 UTC 2010

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:53:48 PDT, "Akyol, Bora A" said:
> As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/"firewall" in place is a security feature,
> I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.

Firewall != NAT.  The former is still needed in IPv6, the latter is not.  And I
suspect that most Joe Sixpacks think of that little box they bought as a
"firewall" and don't understand NAT.  If Joe Sixpack actually knows what NAT
is, tell them the little box still provides all the firewall security and NAT
isn't needed for IPv6.

And if Joe Sixpack *still* insists on NAT, give him a /56 and tell him to turn
on IPv6 autoconfigure. Poof - his subnet no longer matches the outside subnet,
so he must be NAT'ed, right?  (And if Joe sees through *that* subterfuge,
consider hiring him ;)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100724/c29b7f68/attachment.sig>