[136503] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Feb 3 11:41:06 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1102031025560.5148@soloth.lewis.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:30:11 +0100
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3 feb 2011, at 17:16, Jon Lewis wrote:
> When someone breaks or shuts off that filter, traffic through the NAPT =
firewall stops working. On the stateful firewall with public IPs on =
both sides, everything works...including the traffic you didn't want.
> People are going to want NAT66...and not providing it may slow down =
IPv6 adoption.
Hm, if you turn off the NAT66 function, wouldn't the traffic pass =
through unhindered, too?
Or do you propose to make IPv6 home gateways the same way IPv4 home =
gateways work, where it's usually not even possible to turn it off?
Consumer systems need to be able to function without a firewall device, =
anyway. Who brings a firewall to a wifi hotspot, or puts one between his =
laptop and 3G adapter?
I'm perfectly happy with an IPv6 network that only has rational people =
on it while those who insist on NAT stay behind on IPv4.=
