On 10/02/2009, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Sure, but at the end of the day a non-NAT firewall is just a
special case
of NAT firewall where the "inside" and "outside" addresses happen to
be the same.
Uh, that's a pretty twisted view. I would say that NAT is a special
additional capability of the firewall which mangles the address(es)
in the packet. I would not regard passing the address unmangled
as a "special case" of mangling.
You're passing a value judgement on NAT, using loaded terms like
"mangling"
and "twisted".
Fine, you don't like rewriting L3 addresses and L4 port numbers. Yep,
I get that. Relevance?
In terms of implementing the code, sure, the result is about the same,
but, the key point here is that there really isn't a benefit to
having that
packet mangling code in IPv6.
There is if you have a dual-stack device, your L4-and-above protocols
are the same under v4 and v6, and you don't want to reinvent the ALG
wheel.
- mark
--
Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au
(W)
Network Engineer Email:
new...@atdot.dotat.org (H)
Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
