Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

[Mike Hale <eyeronic.design () gmail com>]

Depends on your definition of "behind the curve".  You could make the
argument that folks who aren't IPv6 ready now are behind the curve.  A
weak argument considering IPv4 works perfectly fine for those of
'behind the curve'.

I agree with Bill.  You can poopoo NAT all you want, but it's a fact
of most networks and will continue to remain so until you can make a
compelling case to move away from it.

On that note, it's awesome that Fernando is seeking feedback this
early in the game.  Kudos to you sir.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot () gmail com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2014 10:04 AM, "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> > That's correct: you don't understand. Until you do, just accept: there
> > are more than a few folks who want to, intend to and will use NAT for
> > IPv6. They will wait until NAT is available in their preferred
> > products before making any significant deployment efforts.
>
> Actually, the few like you will hold off until they are behind the curve,
> then scramble to catch up. Good luck with that strategy!



-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0