Re: IPv6
John Kougoulos <[email protected]> Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:29:07 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.firewalls.wizards |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/29/2010 11:33 AM, Martin Barry wrote: > $quoted_author = "Mathew Want" ; >> >> Because I do not want my worktations to be routed to from the internet. > > Then you want a stateful firewall, not NAT66. > > Or do you have other reasons for wanting NAT66? > I see NAT66 helpful on eg site-to-site VPNs. eg. Suppose that I have the prefix 2001:db8:85a3::/48 and I have some my internet accessible machines on 2001:db8:85a3:3::/64 and some "internal" machines on 2001:db8:85a3:2::/64 , 2001:db8:85a3:4::/64. If the other side of the site-to-site VPN routes the whole 2001:db8:85a3::/48 over the VPN in order to access the "internal" machines, they will try to access also the Internet accessible machines over the site-to-site VPN, which could mean that they may bypass some controls, or that I have to open tons of ACLs on various firewalls, not to mention the possible asymmetric routing issues. If I could NAT66 the 2001:db8:85a3::/48 to a ULA::/48 space, I believe it would be much easier to manage, since the other side would have to route the ULA space to the VPN. Regards, John Kougoulos