On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Sander Steffann wrote:
Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise
Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously
without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial
statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically
wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry.
I disagree. While there certainly will be organisations that want such a
'feature' it is certainly not a requirement for every (I hope most, but
I might be optimistic) enterprises.
And I not only agree with Sander, but would also argue for a definitive
statement in a document like this SPECIFICALLY to help educate the
enterprise networking community on how to implement a secure border for
IPv6 without the need for NAT. Having a document to point at that has
been blessed by the IETF/community is key to helping recover the
end-to-end principle. Such a document may or may not be totally in scope
for a "firewall" document, but should talk about concepts like
default-deny inbound traffic, stateful inspection and the use of address
space that is not announced to the Internet and/or is completely blocked
at borders for all traffic.
Heck, we could even make it less specific to IPv6 and create a document
that describes these concepts and show how NAT is not necessary nor wise
for IPv4, either. (Yes, yes, other than address conservation.)
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Skype: brandonross
Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross
