[171104] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Apr 18 13:36:13 2014
In-Reply-To: <53516168.6010002@per.reau.lt>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:35:30 -0400
To: Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt> wrote:
> Le 2014-04-18 13:25, Mike Hale a =C3=A9crit :
>> I agree with Bill. You can poopoo NAT all you want, but it's a fact
>> of most networks and will continue to remain so until you can make a
>> compelling case to move away from it.
>
> Does that mean all IPv6 firewalls should support NAT?
>
> Remember, we're aiming for a base set of requirements applying to all
> IPv6 firewalls.
Your document specifies "Enterprise" firewalls. Frankly I think that's
wise. Consumer and enterprise users have very different needs and very
different cost points.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
