From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quantum Scientific Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 07:50:00 -0600 Message-ID: <200503010750.00630.Info@quantum-sci.com> References: <200502270928.44402.Info@Quantum-Sci.com> <20050227133517.578884df.davem@davemloft.net> <200503011207.34029.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <200503011207.34029.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 01 March 2005 4:07, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > I don't think future Internet will be safe enough to open > corporate networks. I definitely won't do it. > NAT firewall in front of my net is an absolute requirement > for me. I agree that security is an absolute must. It's irresponsible to contend otherwise. But black-box NAT is just *simulating* what a well-made ip6tables firewall does much better. There's no reason every node can't be secure, except the expertise of the script designer. This is why I wish Shorewall would support IPV6. Carl Cook