v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
newton at internode.com.au
Mon Feb 9 23:58:47 UTC 2009
On 10/02/2009, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Sure, but at the end of the day a non-NAT firewall is just a
>> special case
>> of NAT firewall where the "inside" and "outside" addresses happen to
>> be the same.
> Uh, that's a pretty twisted view. I would say that NAT is a special
> additional capability of the firewall which mangles the address(es)
> in the packet. I would not regard passing the address unmangled
> as a "special case" of mangling.
You're passing a value judgement on NAT, using loaded terms like
Fine, you don't like rewriting L3 addresses and L4 port numbers. Yep,
I get that. Relevance?
> In terms of implementing the code, sure, the result is about the same,
> but, the key point here is that there really isn't a benefit to
> having that
> packet mangling code in IPv6.
There is if you have a dual-stack device, your L4-and-above protocols
are the same under v4 and v6, and you don't want to reinvent the ALG
Mark Newton Email: newton at internode.com.au
Network Engineer Email:
newton at atdot.dotat.org (H)
Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
More information about the NANOG