Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote:
> Some operators want NAT.  Some don't.  There are loud voices on both
> sides. Consensus seems slightly against.

Hi Lee,

Some operators want NAT. That's it. End of discussion. This isn't a
consensus question. Some operators want NAT. Period. Full stop.
They'll hold off deploying and when IPv6 is sufficiently valuable,
they'll pay someone to give them NAT. Regardless of whether the
consensus of the IETF approves.

These are the folks who made Gauntlet and its transparent proxies the
#1 firewall product back during the bubble. They don't see the
Internet the way you do.

And if there are more of them than you think, IPv6 won't achieve
sufficient value, won't reach critical mass. Then you'll really REALLY
be stuck with NAT.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004