On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 07:11:59AM -0800, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > ...and esp. a NATting router/firewall such as the WCG-200, where setting > up a DMZ or turning off the firewall may result in a significant decrease in > protection for the internal network. Also, it should work with some > free tunnel provider.
Hmmmm... You want v6 over v4? Or v4 over v6 over v4? Your subject line is a bit confusing. > until that happens, if we want IPv6 connectivity, tunneling seems to be the > way to go. Unfortunately, consumer router/firewalls often don't know what > to do with IP protocols other than TCP and UDP. You *could* always use IPsec protection and let IPsec NAT-Traversal do it's thing. The only gotchas we've seen with NAT-T vs. NATs are that NATs get amnesia sometimes before the IPsec SAs run out of time, and that the behind-the-nat box needs to do more frequent rekeying. I don't know if any of the free tunnel providers do IPsec-protected tunnels, though. Dan _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
