Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted

[Quantum Scientific <Info@quantum-sci.com>]

On Sunday 27 February 2005 11:40, Andre Tomt wrote:
> Connection tracking (as in stateful firewalling) do not a useful ipv6 
> stack make.. The stack works fine, at least the stack provided in 2.6 
> kernels.
...
> You seem to be fixed on the idea that a ipv6 stack has to have stateful 
> firewalling, or else its utter crap, correct? :-)

No, I'll try to say this clearer.

The stack works fine in.  And out.  But for a useful virtual circuit you must 
have something like connection tracking.

Remember what my issue is:  
- I have a very tight firewall,
- I ping6 out,
- The firewall blocks the reply back, because the connection is stateless!
- Same with http, etc.

This means that I have to open for incoming, virtually every port I send 
outgoing to, or else I do not get any replies. This is what I call 
non-functional, because one does not open incoming ports, for the most part.

Why are you not having this problem?


> Connection tracking is on the way, currently a implementation exists in 
> the netfilter.org patch-o-matic svn.

Is this reasonably solid?  Does this operate on Layer 3, rather than Layer 2?


> Not all hosts need firewalling at all, or firewalling is provided by 
> routers/firewalls for them. I use ipv6 in production networks, on Linux, 
> without special patches.

Sorry, I disagree.  The whole point of IPV6 is ubiquitous addressing.  So 
every single node must have a good firewall.  In fact my router is 
firewalling as well, so my LAN nodes are double-firewalled.

It is irresponsible to not firewall all nodes, as they are supposed to be 
universally available with this paradigm.

Carl Cook