On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Some folks WANT to segregate their networks from the Internet via a >> general-protocol transparent proxy. They've had this capability with >> IPv4 for 20 years. IPv6 poorly addresses their requirement. > > NAT i s not required for the above. Any firewall can stop incoming packets > unless they are part of an established session. NAT doesn't add much of > anything, especially given that you can have one-to-one NAT.
Hi Patrick, What sort of traction are you getting from that argument with enterprise security folks who object to deploying IPv6 because of NAT? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
