On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:16:10 -0700 Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> > > > Frankly, when you hear people strongly using the argument stateful > > firewalling == NAT, you start to wonder if they've ever seen a stateful > > firewall using public addresses. > > > I've run several of them. > My comment wasn't a reply to you, more of a general comment about the surprising effort you still need to go to explain that stateful firewalling doesn't mandate NAT. I sometimes wonder if some people's heads would explode if I told them that this PC is directly attached to the Internet, has both public IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, and is performing stateful firewalling - with no NAT anywhere. Regards, Mark.
