Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

Fri Apr 18 22:10:26 UTC 2014

On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at 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