[125684] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Wed Apr 21 06:39:07 2010
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:08:26 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <66C49CF3-0719-4E03-A657-9F380668F3D6@delong.com>
Cc: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:16:10 -0700
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, when you hear people strongly using the argument stateful
> > firewalling == NAT, you start to wonder if they've ever seen a stateful
> > firewall using public addresses.
> >
> I've run several of them.
>
My comment wasn't a reply to you, more of a general comment about the
surprising effort you still need to go to explain that stateful
firewalling doesn't mandate NAT.
I sometimes wonder if some people's heads would explode if I told them
that this PC is directly attached to the Internet, has both public IPv4
and IPv6 addresses, and is performing stateful firewalling - with no NAT
anywhere.
Regards,
Mark.
