Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

Sat Apr 19 20:34:32 UTC 2014

On 04/18/2014 07:58 PM, Enno Rey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:59:04AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 04/18/2014 12:57 AM, Enno Rey wrote:
>>> I fully second Sander's input. I've been involved in IPv6 planning in a number of very large enterprises now and_none_  of them required/asked for (66/overloading) NAT for their firewall environments. A few think about very specific deployments of NPTv6 like stuff for connections to supplier/partner networks (to map those to their own address space) but these are corner cases not even relevant for their "firewalls".
>>
>> How many of those networks were implementing with IPv6 PI space?
>
> all of them

Et Voila!

>   My
>> experience has been that those customers are not interested in IPv6 NAT,
>> but instead utilize network segmentation to define "internal" vs.
>> "external."
>>
>> OTOH, customers for whom PI space is not realistic (for whatever
>> reasons, and yes there are reasons) are very interested in the
>> combination of ULA + NTPv6 to handle internal resources without having
>> to worry about renumbering down the road.
>
> true. it's just we don't see many of those (actually I've yet to encounter a single one) and it could be debatable if they belong to "Enterprise" networks (which is in the title of the ID).

If the draft wants to define "enterprise network" as "big enough and 
technically capable enough to warrant PI space" I wouldn't necessarily 
object, but the business customers I work with who aren't, might.

Doug