Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

["Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us>

> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 2:19 PM Jay R. Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> > > From: "Justin Streiner" <streinerj () gmail com>
> > > 4. Getting people to unlearn the "NAT=Security" mindset that we were forced
> > > to accept in the v4 world.
> >
> > NAT doesn't "equal" security.
> >
> > But it is certainly a *component* of security, placing control of what internal
> > nodes are accessible from the outside in the hands of the people inside.
>
> Every firewall does that. What NAT does above and beyond is place
> control of what internal nodes are -addressable- from the outside in
> the hands of the people inside -- so that most of the common mistakes
> with firewall configuration don't cause the internal hosts to -become-
> accessible.
>
> The distinction doesn't seem that subtle to me, but a lot of folks
> making statements about network security on this list don't appear to
> grasp it.

You bet.  I knew someone would chime in, but whether they'd be agreeing
with me -- as you are -- or yelling at me, wasn't clear.

It's a default deny (NAT) vs default allow (firewall) question, and
I prefer default deny -- at least inbound.  You *can* run NAT as default
deny outbound, too, but it's much less tolerable for general internet
connectivity -- in some dedicated circumstances, it can be workable.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274