[171156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George William Herbert)
Sat Apr 19 14:09:03 2014
In-Reply-To: <46E462F4-B382-4948-99BB-57B9700CC987@arbor.net>
From: George William Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:08:26 -0700
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:10 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
> You can 'call' it all you like - but people who actually want to keep thei=
r servers up and running don't put stateful firewalls in front of them,
I don't know where you find ideas like this.
There are stateful firewalls in the security packages in front of all the in=
ternet facing servers in all the major service providers I've worked at. No=
t *just* stateful firewalls, but they're in there.
That one company is trying something different does not mean there isn't wid=
espread standardized use of the technology.
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
