On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Edward Ned Harvey >> >> So moving forward, it seems only natural that (for people who agree >> with this policy) a lot of IPv6 firewalls will need to be configured to >> block all inbound IPv6 traffic and permit all outbound. Unfortunately, > this >> defeats the main value-add of IPv6, which is peer-to-peer. >> >> So logically, it seems natural, a lot of IPv6 firewalls will need to > support >> things like NAT-PMP, or IGD, so the internal devices can automatically > > First of all, I could name some legitimate uses for NAT even in IPv6, so > what's with the religious anti-nat sentiment. Relax everyone. > > Second of all, the question I asked has no relation to NAT. Does anyone > want to re-read the OP and reply about the firewall rules and allowing of > inbound traffic on IPv6?
Please clarify. Do you mean statically allowing inbound packets? Or 'punching holes' as I suggested in an earlier note at the request of internal systems? Bill Bogstad _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
