[128058] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Fri Jul 23 17:40:08 2010
From: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
To: <matthew@matthew.at>, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4C48E461.9090002@matthew.at>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:39:49 -0400
Cc: 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew@matthew.at]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:38 PM
> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
> "Home wifi router" vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work,
> so of course in your scenario they simply implement NAT66 (whether or
> not IETF folks think it is a good idea) however they see fit and nobody
> calls.
If that's what you want, you'd better submit that feature request, because
it's not in queue yet. IPv6 will be in production before that comes out.
Re: NAT vs firewall:
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-06 says "Use
draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security"
which says "Block bogons and have a stateful firewall."
Lee
