On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, david raistrick wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Seriously, though, you're welcome to use fd00::/8 for exactly that purpose. The problem is that you (and hopefully it stays this way) won't have much luck finding a vendor that will provide the NAT for you to do it with.
[with my flame-retardant hat installed firmly]
So what's the IPV6 solution for PCI compliance, where 1.3.8 requires the use of RFC1918 space? Admitedly, it's been a year or two since I last had to engineer around that particular set of rules...but it's life or death for a lot of folks.
Document a compensating control... That particular case is trivial to demonstrate that the in scope addresses are not exposed to the internet.
-- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html