I have almost one hundred FWs. Some physical. Some virtual. Various
vendors. Your point is spot on.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 8:55 PM, Lee wrote:
On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
On 7/16/12, Grant Ridder wrote:
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
You wouldn't. But if you've got an HA pair at site A and another HA
pair at site B..
Lee
>
> -Grant
>
> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>> In message > squu
On 7/16/12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
> , Lee
> writes:
>> On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >
>> > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is
>> > being
>> > able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
>> > conservation. It has no good use
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:31:42 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>> Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
>>
>> Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
>> network connecting all the corporate sites li
Op 17 jul 2012, om 04:56 heeft Grant Ridder het volgende geschreven:
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
Because it could be/is a stateful firewall and the backup will drop the
traffic. (FreeBSD CARP)
Cheers,
Seth
>
> -Grant
>
> On Monday,
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:31:42 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
>
> Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
> network connecting all the corporate sites lives inside those firewalls.
>
> The real solution to this is to move t
Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
network connecting all the corporate sites lives inside those firewalls.
The real solution to this is to move the backbone outside of the firewalls
and connect the internal ne
On Jul 16, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Lee wrote:
> On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
>> able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
>> conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
>
> NAT is good for getting
In message
, Grant
Ridder writes:
>
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
>
> -Grant
It still doesn't change the arguement. You still need to have flow
based routers or you may choose the wrong egress point and if you
need NAT66 you have 4+ ups
If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
through?
-Grant
On Monday, July 16, 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message squumzofs3_-yrihy8o4gt3w9+x6f...@mail.gmail.com >, Lee
> writes:
> > On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong > wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!
In message
, Lee
writes:
> On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
> > able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
> > conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
>
> NAT is good for getting the return
On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
> able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
> conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
NAT is good for getting the return traffic to the right firewall. How
else
12 matches
Mail list logo
