[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
- Subject: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls
- From: Lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard)
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:10:26 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CAP-guGV-NJEUaSRJPVfNGtdar5ABRkjEbEpqsaDU2Vq0B=rEBQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAP-guGV-NJEUaSRJPVfNGtdar5ABRkjEbEpqsaDU2Vq0B=rEBQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise
>Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously
>without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial
>statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically
>wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry.
You've said this before, and it is still an absurdly over-broad statement.
Many security professionals have deployed enterprise firewalls to their
satisfaction without NAT-PT.
We had this debate, what, a month ago? Your position hasn't changed. No
new use cases have emerged. Are we done here?
Lee