Fernando, 

Thank you very much for the reply. 

The section 4 & 5 of the draft are really good. 

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 6:24 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana); [email protected]
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] "On Firewalls in Internet Security" (Fwd: New Version 
Notification for draft-gont-opsawg-firewalls-analysis-00.txt)

Hi, Linda,

On 09/17/2015 06:15 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> I am also not sure of the intent of this draft. Is the intent of the 
> draft to provide the guideline on configuring Firewall?

Certainly not. Please see Melinda's comments.



> Comment to the first paragraph in Section 10 Recommendation:
>  
> Most deployed FWs are usually not "single purposed" as characterized 
> as "Zone-based" FW, or "Rule based" FW. A FW that has rules on zones 
> can also have rules to allow session originated from outside to some 
> applications.

We didn't mean that firewalls are single purposed. Certinly, a given device can 
implement different kinds of firewalls. That doesn't make our analysis on the 
kinds of firewalls incorrect, though.



> Comment to the second paragraph in Section 10 Recommendation:
> In order to achieve the recommendation described by the second 
> paragraph of the Section 10 Recommendations, the router has to install 
> all the host routes for "Bob, Alice, etc". It doesn't scale.

I guess that depends on a number of factors... among others, on the granularity 
that you talk about.



> Comment to "FW SHOULD NOT attempt to perform any kind of DPI":
> Many modern FWs do perform DPIs. Are you saying they should be strip 
> off the network? They all had legitimate reasons to be deployed, and 
> they are running fine.

You seem to have cut off part of the sentence. It says:

   firewalls of any type SHOULD NOT
   attempt to perform the kind of deep packet inspection and surgery
   that is common with Network Address Translators [RFC2993]

And what we mean s not that FWs should not perform the kind of surgery that NAT 
devices perform (e.g., modifying the application data stream).

Thanks!

Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492




_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to