Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- From: John Kougoulos <koug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:29:07 +0200
On 12/29/2010 11:33 AM, Martin Barry wrote:
$quoted_author = "Mathew Want" ;
Because I do not want my worktations to be routed to from the internet.
Then you want a stateful firewall, not NAT66.
Or do you have other reasons for wanting NAT66?
I see NAT66 helpful on eg site-to-site VPNs.
eg. Suppose that I have the prefix 2001:db8:85a3::/48 and I have some my
internet accessible machines on 2001:db8:85a3:3::/64 and some "internal"
machines on 2001:db8:85a3:2::/64 , 2001:db8:85a3:4::/64.
If the other side of the site-to-site VPN routes the whole
2001:db8:85a3::/48 over the VPN in order to access the "internal"
machines, they will try to access also the Internet accessible machines
over the site-to-site VPN, which could mean that they may bypass some
controls, or that I have to open tons of ACLs on various firewalls, not to mention the possible asymmetric routing issues.
If I could NAT66 the 2001:db8:85a3::/48 to a ULA::/48 space, I believe it would be much easier to manage, since the other side would have to route the ULA space to the VPN.
Regards,
John Kougoulos
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- From: Martin Barry
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- References:
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- From: Roger Marquis
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- From: sai
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- From: Mathew Want
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- From: Martin Barry
- Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- Prev by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- Next by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- Previous by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] IPv6
- Index(es):