Wait… You’re trying to convince me that it’s easier to understand “You have this box in the way. It blocks many of the packets you want and some of the packets you don’t want. It also does weird things to the header in the process.” than it is to understand “You have this box. By default it only allows outbound connections and blocks all incoming connections. You can tell it what you want to permit inbound. Your packet headers are the same on both sides of the box.” You have a different definition of “easy to understand” than I do. Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 18:33 , Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
On 7/14/2015 7:57 PM, James Downs wrote:
On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake. Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home and in the datacenter has IPv6 turned on by default. If someone wandered through those networks, and started turning on IPv6 infrastructure so that they started getting IPv6 addresses, my bet is that most of the java-based applications would already be bound to the stacks in such a way that they would just start sending traffic over IPv6. I base this on the fact that any number of developers have been confused by “::” being somewhere in their world now. Those people don’t care about the network, or IPv4 vs IPv6. It would just work.
Now, if layman == Network Operators, and Networking people at Corporations, well, there you might be right.
Cheers, -j
-- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com