Re: Looking for comments

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Franck Martin wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Karl Auer" <kauer () biplane com au>
> > To: nanog () nanog org
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 July, 2010 4:24:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Looking for comments
> > On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:37 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > I can throw a COTS d-link box with
> > > > address-overloaded NAT on a connection and have reasonably
> > > > effective
> > > > network security and anonymity in IPv4. Achieving comparable
> > > > results
> > > > in the IPv6 portion of the dual stack on each of those hosts is
> > > > complicated at best.
> > > Actually, it isn't particularly hard at all... Turn on privacy
> > > addressing
> > > on each of the hosts (if it isn't on by default) and then put a
> > > linux
> > > firewall in front of them with a relatively simple ip6tables
> > > configuration
> > > for outbound only.
> >
> > All respect to someone that knows his stuff, and I do realise that the
> > OP mentioned small-scale hardware, but in the wider world (and even
> > the
> > world of home users as seen from the carrier side) any solution that
> > says "do <whatever> on every host" is just not workable. As for the
> > Linux packet filter, that's an exercise for the advanced home user.
In a home environment where do X on every host isn't workable, it's
rare that every is more than 1, so, it's do X on THE host most of the
time.

Windows defaults to privacy addresses on by default, so, that also
takes care of most of the environments where people have minimal
understanding of technology.

It takes some effort (minimal) on Linux. I haven't investigated what
it takes on Mac.

Again, this only matters if you care about address obfuscation anyway,
which isn't really security, but, does provide some (minimal and ineffective)
aspects of privacy.

The packet filter doesn't have to be done on every host, just the gateway.

> On Mac Airport Extreme it is "disallow outside to access internal machines", tick and it is done!

That takes care of the packet filter, but, it doesn't handle the stated
requirement for address obfuscation.

I question the value of address obfuscation, but, the people with that
religion will not give it up so I attempted to address the problem as
stated.

Owen