Joe Greco wrote:
Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen.
Gotta love it. A proven technology, successfully implemented on millions of residential firewalls "isn't really a firewall, but rather "a disaster waiting to happen". Make you wonder what disaster and when exactly it's going to happen? Simon Perreault wrote:
We have thus come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a NAT-like firewall in IPv6 home routers.
And that, in a nutshell, is why IPv6 is not going to become widely feasible any time soon. Whether or not there should be NAT in IPv6 is a purely rhetorical argument. The markets have spoken, and they demand NAT. Is there a natophobe in the house who thinks there shouldn't be stateful inspection in IPv6? If not then could you explain what overhead NAT requires that stateful inspection hasn't already taken care of? Far from the issue some try to make it out to be, NAT is really just a component of stateful inspection. If you're going to implement statefulness there is no technical downside to implementing NAT as well. No downside, plenty of upsides, no brainer... Roger Marquis