Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:09:10AM -0400, Rob Hasselbaum wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Richard Pieri <Richard.Pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>wrote: > > Anyone who relies on NAT for security has almost no network security (see: > > source IP spoofing). NAT is not, and never has been, about security. It > > exists to address the limited address space in IPv4 but it is not formally > > part of IPv4. NAT is, ultimately, a clever hack used to link non-routable > > networks to routable networks. Agreed. > > IPv6 removes this necessity. Thus, no NAT for IPv6. And hopefully there > > never will be. IPv6 has link-local and site-local addressing, which > > eliminates the need for segregating non-routable networks. This is built > > into the specification. For everything else there is SPI. Site-local addresses are deprecated: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3879 and replaced by Unique Local Addressing (ULA): http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193 > Agreed, NAT is not a required ingredient for an effective firewall. Apples > and oranges. It does, however, provide source obfuscation for individual > machines on a LAN, and there is some value in that. For example, I suspect We have Privacy Addressing: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941 > if it weren't for NAT, consumers would be paying their ISPs "per-node" > connection fees. If things move in that direction in a mostly-IPv6 world, we > could see a resurgence of NAT. That is not supposed to happen. There is no reason for an ISP to hand out IPv6 addresses one /128 at a time. They would be creating a management nightmare for themselves and hurting their customers. The latest recommendations on prefix sizing are here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177 There is rough consensus that residential customers will be provided a /56 prefix, enough for 256 /64 subnets, but there is no hard requirement on that specific size.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |