nanog mailing list archives

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls


From: Simon Perreault <simon () per reau lt>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:06:17 -0400

Le 2014-04-18 14:00, William Herrin a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Simon Perreault <simon () per reau lt> wrote:
Le 2014-04-18 13:35, William Herrin a écrit :
Your document specifies "Enterprise" firewalls. Frankly I think that's
wise. Consumer and enterprise users have very different needs and very
different cost points.

Over here we have no use for IPv6 NAT. We have our own PI space. I
suspect many other enterprises would be in a similar situation.

I totally get your position, but I don't see how it can justify an
Internet-wide requirement.

As I understand your document, you're trying to scope a set of minimum
required features for a firewall that will be able to describe itself
as "RFC whatever compliant." The idea is for folks working for large
enterprises to be able to use such a tag as a discriminator for
potential purchases. Since a pretty humongous number of them are using
NAT with IPv4 and are likely to want to do so with IPv6, leaving that
out of the required feature list seems counter-productive to your goal
of a document which has utility to them.

Besides, you have spam control and URL filtering in there. Do you
seriously propose that spam control and URL filtering rank above NAT
on the *firewall* requirements list?

Well, it's not *my* document, but I'm very interested in it.

IMHO it should not be a shopping list of features that people might
want. The goal should not be to be a base for RFPs.

IMHO, what the IETF can do is recommend a set of behavioural traits that
make IPv6 firewalls behave like good citizens in the Internet ecosystem.
Meaning that a firewall that obeys those requirements will not break the
Internet. For example, passing ICMPv6 Too Big messages is important to
not break the Internet.

I think we can get consensus on such requirements, and I think it would
fit the IETF's role. A feature shopping list, not so much.

Simon


Current thread: