Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Fri Apr 18 23:02:04 UTC 2014
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 06:37:28PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> On 4/18/14 4:33 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >If William and I fight that fight, lose it, and come back and tell you
> >"They won't go because insufficient NAT" you need to listen. I've fought
> >this in a dozen places and lost 8 of them, not because I don't know v6,
> >because the clients have inertia and politics around security posture
> >changes (and in some cases, PCI compliance regs).
> IPv6 evangelists are used to fighting inertia.
> PCI, however. . . anyone have any contacts there?
If you get to talk to them, they'll probably look at you funny and say,
"whatchoo talkin' 'bout?". PCI DSS *does not require NAT*. Anyone who
says differently is selling something (probably a NAT box). You can refer
to the source documents yourself -- they're freely available
example). As a testimonial, we run a no-NAT environment and got full PCI
compliance with nary a twitch of the eyebrow. Didn't even have to argue the
toss with anyone.
More information about the NANOG