nanog mailing list archives
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: "Duane Waddle" <duane.waddle () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:57:00 -0500
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org> wrote:
If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall, you're delusional. That battle is long over. The best we can hope for is that those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.
Vendor C claims to support v6 (without NAT) in their "enterprise class" stateful firewall appliance as of OS version 7.2 (or thereabouts, perhaps 7.0). I've not tried it out yet to see how well it works. But, as far as the home/home office goes -- will my cable/dsl provider be able (willing?) to route a small v6 prefix to my home so that I can use a bitty-box stateful v6 firewall without NAT? What will be the cost to me, the home subscriber, to get said routable prefix? I am sure it increases the operator's expense to route a prefix to most (if not every) broadband subscriber in an area. In the beginning, cable operators were reluctant to support home customers using NAT routers to share their access. Now, renting/selling NAT routers to customers has become a revenue stream for some. How does lack of v6 NAT affect all of this?
Current thread:
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6), (continued)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Stephen Sprunk (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Duane Waddle (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Stephen Sprunk (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Daniel Senie (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 02)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Mark Newton (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Randy Bush (Oct 03)
- Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)