Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:16:10 -0700
Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

> > Frankly, when you hear people strongly using the argument stateful
> > firewalling == NAT, you start to wonder if they've ever seen a stateful
> > firewall using public addresses.
> I've run several of them.

My comment wasn't a reply to you, more of a general comment about the
surprising effort you still need to go to explain that stateful
firewalling doesn't mandate NAT.

I sometimes wonder if some people's heads would explode if I told them
that this PC is directly attached to the Internet, has both public IPv4
and IPv6 addresses, and is performing stateful firewalling - with no NAT
anywhere.

Regards,
Mark.