bill at herrin.us
Mon Mar 24 17:17:39 UTC 2014
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> Some folks WANT to segregate their networks from the Internet via a
>> general-protocol transparent proxy. They've had this capability with
>> IPv4 for 20 years. IPv6 poorly addresses their requirement.
> NAT i s not required for the above. Any firewall can stop incoming packets unless they are part of an established session. NAT doesn't add much of anything, especially given that you can have one-to-one NAT.
What sort of traction are you getting from that argument with
enterprise security folks who object to deploying IPv6 because of NAT?
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the NANOG