Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

[Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen () imacandi net>]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:45 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert () gmail com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen () imacandi net>wrote:
>
> > ...
> > It's a bigger risk to think that NAT somehow magically protects you
> > against
> > stuff on the Internet.
> > Also, if your problem is that someone can screw up firewalls rules, then
> > you have bigger issue in your organization than IPv6.
>
>
>
> > There's a fair argument to be made which says that kind of NAT is
> > > unhealthy. If its proponents are correct, they'll win that argument
> > > later on with NAT-incompatible technology that enterprises want. After
> > > all, enterprise security folk didn't want the Internet in the
> > > corporate network at all, but having a web browser on every desk is
> > > just too darn useful. Where they won't win that argument is in the
> > > stretch of maximum risk for the enterprise security folk.
> > Any technology has associated risks, it's a matter of how you
> > reduce/mitigate them.
> > This paranoia thingie about IPv6 is getting a bit old.
> > Just because you don't (seem to) understand how it works, it doesn't mean
> > no one else should use it.
>
>
>
> You are missing the point.

> Granted, anyone who is IPv6 aware doing a green-field enterprise firewall
> design today should probably choose another way than NAT.
That's why you have gazzilions of IP addresses in IPv6, so you don't need
to NAT anything (among other things). I don't understand why people cling
to NAT stuff when you can just route.



> What you are failing is that "redesign firewall rules and approach from
> scratch along with the IPv6 implementation" usually is not the chosen path,
> versus "re-implement the same v4 firewall rules and technologies in IPv6
> for the IPv6 implementation", because all the IPv6 aware net admins are
> having too much to do dealing with all the other conversion issues, vendor
> readiness all across the stack, etc.
You treat IPv6 like the only protocol running and design the implementation
taking that into consideration. Where necessary you publish AAAA records
and so only devices/services that are IPv6 aware will be accessed over
IPv6, all others can stay on IPv4 until they are migrated. It works
wonderful.

This idea of matching IPv4 1:1 to IPv6 is not the way to go.


> Variations on this theme are part of why it's 2014 and IPv6 hasn't already
> taken over the world.  The more rabid IPv6 proponents have in fact shot the
> transition in the legs repeatedly, and those of us who have been on the
> front lines would like you all to please shut up and get out of the way so
> we can actually finish effecting v6 deployment and move on to mopping up
> things like NAT later.


I don't get this paragraph. From my perspective, if you want IPv6 you can
do it. From all the organizations I get in contact and ask about IPv6 is
the lack of knowledge and interest that puts a stop to the deployment,
nothing else.

Eugeniu