[nznog] Web Servers: Dual-homing or DNAT/Port Forwarding?

Wed Dec 11 01:27:23 UTC 2013

On Dec 10, 2013 2:32 PM, "Geraint Jones" <geraint at koding.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/13 10:13 am, "Alex White-Robinson" <alexwr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Wotcha,
> >
> >>Number 1 gets you thinking along the IPv6 route (no pun, and imho :) )
> >>since you have to treat each boxes as if it was public.
> >
> >I see this kind of statement surprisingly often. Having a public address
> >doesn't make a device public.
>
> Yes it does, it makes end to end connectivity work again. NAT broke that
> (and its one of the best things about v6). People have been relying on the
> fact that you need rules to get through a NAT to reach a box - thereby
> having NAT work as an inbound firewall. NAT != Security.
>
> But yes having a public address means your box is public, you have to do
> something to STOP traffic getting to it. With NAT you have to do something
> to ENABLE traffic to get to it.
>

Correct. IPv6 correctly supports the end to end model.

Firewalls can be scalably implemented on host, not middle boxes.

The firewall mindset is locked in from  the win2k days, NAT reinforced
that, and it is worth re-evaluated removing firewalls with ipv6

Question: are nanog meeting networks stateful firewalled?  Follow up
question -- if there is no firewall, do folks experience a higher degree of
malware infection after the meeting ?

CB

> >I don't really see a drive to have devices exposed to the internet
without
> >a stateful device in front of them in IPv6 world. People shouldn't allow
> >unsolicited connections to hit your internal workstation on any address
> >scheme.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Alex.
> >
> >
> >Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 05:56:41 +1300
> >From: Pieter De Wit <pieter at insync.za.net>
> >To: nznog at list.waikato.ac.nz
> >Subject: Re: [nznog] Web Servers: Dual-homing or DNAT/Port Forwarding?
> >Message-ID: <52A5F649.7070904 at insync.za.net>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I normally use a combination of "1" and "2". I prefer 1 for weird and
> >"not nat friendly" protocols, like SIP or some other application. The
> >general rule of thumb is to use number 2 in other cases. In both setups,
> >remember to deploy local firewalls as well. This will help for the case
> >when a box on the subnet is hacked.
> >
> >My other twist is to deploy "1" without the private NIC, along with
> >local firewalls (and as you said, dedicated FW).
> >
> >Number 1 gets you thinking along the IPv6 route (no pun, and imho :) )
> >since you have to treat each boxes as if it was public.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Pieter
>
>
>