IPv6 Firewalls

J. Oquendo sil at infiltrated.net
Wed Jan 31 03:55:48 UTC 2007

Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:43:52PM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote:
> ...
>> A lot of vendor information on this, etc. can be summarized over at 
>> http://www.moonv6.org/ (or at least the hype of it)
> ...
> This is why I asked: at some point last year, those guys said NO
> firewalls were IPv6-ready yet.
 From their last tests 
(http://www.moonv6.org/project/july2006/Moonv6_2006_Whitepaper.pdf) it 
seemed they accomplished a lot of their tasks. They didn't include the 
list of vendors that tested though:

// PAGE 7

Firewall deep-inspection functionality of application traffic in a mixed 
IPv4/IPv6 environment was validated and compared with the same test 
scenarios in an IPv4 oenvironment. A realistic protocol mix was 
configured to simulate the forwarding and blocking capabilities in an 
actual network.

A critical concern that must be addressed in an IPv4/IPv6 transition 
environment is equivalent quality of the user experience. If a security 
device performs adequately wIPv4, it should also sustain comparable 
performance levels when processing mixed IPv4/IPv6 and pure IPv6 
traffic. Responding to that concern, the 2006 Moonv6 Transition Test 
Suite included performance tests that compared security devices IPv6 and 
mixed IPv4/IPv6 performance. These tests used real-world application mix 
traffic to measure the metrics. The tests successfully validated that 
security devices casustain adequate performance and QoE levels in 
transition IPv4/IPv6 environments.


J. Oquendo
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net 

The happiness of society is the end of government.
John Adams

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5157 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070130/3e83a4ff/attachment.bin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list