On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Darren Reed <darr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
IPFilter 5 does IPv6 NAT.

With the import of 5.1.2, map, rdr and rewrite rules will all work with
IPv6 addresses.

NAT66 is a specific implementation of IPv6 NAT behaviour.

2014-07-29 00:07 Kevin Oberman wrote:
And all IPv6 NAT is evil and should be cast into (demonic residence of your
choosing) on sight!

NAT on IPv6 serves no useful purpose at all. It only serves to complicate things and make clueless security officers happy. It adds zero security. It is a great example of people who assume that NAT is a security feature in
IPv4 (it's not) so it should also be in IPv6.

The problem is that this meme is so pervasive that even when people
understand that it is bad, they still insist on it because there will be an unchecked box on the security checklist for "All systems not pubic servers are in RFC1918 space? -- YES NO". The checklist item should be (usually) "All systems behind a stateful firewall with an appropriate rule set? --
YES  NO" as it is a stateful firewall (which is mandatory for NAT that
provides all of the security.

I say "usually" because the major research lab where I worked ran without a firewall (and probably still does) and little, if any, NAT. It was tested
regularly by red teams hired by the feds and they never were able to
penetrate anything due to a very aggressive IDS/IPS system, but most people and companies should NOT go this route. I have IPv6 at home (Comcast) and my router runs a stateful firewall with a rule set functionally the same as
that used for IPv4 and that provides the protection needed.

So putting support for NAT66 or any IPv6 NAT into a firewall is just making
things worse. Please don't do it!
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com

You are missing the point, we are talking about NAT64 (IPv6-only datacenter's path to a legacy world), and NPT66 (prefix transalation). I doubt anyone had
a traditional NAT in mind.

Consider a small site with uplinks to two service providers: it can use ULA
internally and translate prefix on each uplink.

Please see these short blogs:

- To ULA or not to ULA, That’s the Question

- I Say ULA, You Hear NAT

- PA, PI or ULA IPv6 Address Space? It depends

- Source IPv6 Address Selection Saves the Day

freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to