Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

[Fernando Gont <fernando () gont com ar>]

Hi, Brandon,

On 04/17/2014 08:20 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> > > Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise
> > > Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously
> > > without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial
> > > statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically
> > > wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry.
> >
> > I disagree. While there certainly will be organisations that want such
> > a 'feature' it is certainly not a requirement for every (I hope most,
> > but I might be optimistic) enterprises.
>
> And I not only agree with Sander, but would also argue for a definitive
> statement in a document like this SPECIFICALLY to help educate the
> enterprise networking community on how to implement a secure border for
> IPv6 without the need for NAT.  Having a document to point at that has
> been blessed by the IETF/community is key to helping recover the
> end-to-end principle.  Such a document may or may not be totally in
> scope for a "firewall" document, but should talk about concepts like
> default-deny inbound traffic, stateful inspection and the use of address
> space that is not announced to the Internet and/or is completely blocked
> at borders for all traffic.

Are you argung against of e.g. "default-deny inbound traffic"?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando () gont com ar || fgont () si6networks com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1