|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <5351638A.2080601@per.reau.lt> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:54:03 -0700 From: Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@gmail.com> 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 Many enterprises probably are in the same position, but a whole lot of them aren't. Maybe this comes down to "should" versus "must". I don't think all IPv6 firewalls "must" support NAT, but they should. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt> wrote= : > Le 2014-04-18 13:35, William Herrin a =E9crit : >>> 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. > > Over here we have no use for IPv6 NAT. We have our own PI space. I > suspect many other enterprises would be in a similar situation. > > I totally get your position, but I don't see how it can justify an > Internet-wide requirement. > > Simon > --=20 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |