[171118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Perreault)
Fri Apr 18 15:04:46 2014
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:03:13 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUQ-YU=JA7YgpuzMkmiMXL3HpS88KBgaMNeB2+Qi3mpxA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Le 2014-04-18 14:57, William Herrin a écrit :
> Excluding references and remarks RFC 6888 is 8 pages long with 15
> total requirements. Short.
Given the trend toward ever-fluffier RFCs, I'll take that as a
compliment. :)
> I'll let the firewall document's authors speak for themselves about
> their document's purpose. In the abstract, they said: ''This has
> typically been a problem for network operators, who typically have to
> produce a "Request for Proposal" from scratch that describes such
> features.''
>
> That says, "discriminator for potential purchases" to me. What's your take?
I agree with your interpretation, and I disagree with the intent.
> I agree that a "don't break the Internet' firewall requirements
> document could have utility. But that doesn't appear to be this
> document. And if done well, such a document would be short just like
> RFC 6888.
Full agreement.
Simon
