On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:21 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private > addressing does not equal security. > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > It is your privilege to believe this and to practice it in the > > networks you operate. > > > > Many of the folks you would have deploy IPv6 do not agree. They take > > comfort in the mathematical impossibility of addressing an internal > > host from an outside packet that is not part of an ongoing session. > > These folks find that address-overloaded NAT provides a valuable > > additional layer of security. > > Which impossibility has been disproven multiple times. > > > 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. > > Actually, there are multiple implementations of transparent proxies > available > for IPv6. NAT isn't the same thing at all. > > If you want to make your life difficult in IPv6, you can. Nobody prevents > you from > doing so. It is discouraged and non-sensical, but quite possible at this > point. > > Owen > > > Right. fc00::/7 exists. If you want to emulate your internal use of 10.0.0.0/8 plus NAT (or, proxies or load balancers or whatever) in your IPv6 implementation go ahead. Putting in some robust filtering that if the fc00::/7 ever appears outside the internal gateway the traffic goes poof should be as easy as the equivalents for 10, 172.16, 192.168 ... -- -george william herbert [email protected]
