Re: IPv6

[Timothy Shea <tim () tshea net>]

There is much additional complexity in IPv6 regardless of security
architecture.  And IPSec being "built in" is irreverent to the debate.

Outside of our government contracts - not even remotely thinking about
IPv6.  Maybe in a few more years.

t.s

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Devdas Bhagat <dvb () users sourceforge net>wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
> > Is anyone doing anything interesting with v6 and firewalls?  We're
> > supposedly coming up on the year that v6 will break out, and most
> > organizations I know still don't even route it.
>
> I am looking to start announcing IPv6 early next month. At this point,
> Linux and *BSD boxes support IPv6 in their firewall rulesets.
>
> There really shouldn't be much additional complexity with IPv6 in
> any good security architecture. It's just another routed protocol,
> with longer addresses and IPSec built in.
>
> At the beginning though, we are likely to see simple IPv6 routing
> with no AH/ESP.
>
> What will be infinitely more interesting will be the combinations
> of IPv4 to IPv6 mapping/NATing/routing which will happen.
>
> Devdas Bhagat
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards



-- 
Tim Shea, CISSP
612-384-6810
tim () tshea net

http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothyshea

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards