[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: quietly....
- From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:29:01 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Lewis" <jlewis at lewis.org>
> There's an awful lot of inertia in the "NAPT/firewall keeps our hosts
> safe from the internet" mentality. Sure, a stateful firewall can be
> configured allow all outbound traffic and only connected/related
> 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.
This is the crux of the argument I've been trying, rather ineptly,
to make: when it breaks, *which way does it fail*. NAT fails safe,
> People are going to want NAT66...and not providing it may slow down
> IPv6 adoption.
You're using the future tense there, Jon; are you sure you didn't mean
to use the present? Or the past...?