Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

Matt Palmer mpalmer at
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> 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,
> >but
> >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
(, for
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.

- Matt

More information about the NANOG mailing list