Re: Does IPv6 preclude use of a NAT gateway?
On 12/07/11 17:45, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 02:18:44PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On a different thread - I probably should have pointed out that the
>> IPSec is mandatory with IPV6, which should make IPV6 more secure that
>> IPV4.
>
> No, it is not. It was in the beginning, but there were manucaturers who
> didn’t want to implement it. Now IPSec is optional again.
>
> Shade and sweet water!
>
> Stephan
>
I don't doubt that in the sea of RFCs I've missed the obsolescence of
RFC2402, 2406 and 2407 - could you point me at the new optional IPSec
standard please. :-)
Perhaps I misunderstood you - and you mean some manufacturer make
rubbish, and have somehow extrapolated a new policy from that....
I should also have probably pointed out that privacy extensions take
care of many of poster's concerns about the loss of (IPv4) NAT capabilities.
Cheers
--
What did moths bump into before the electric light bulb was invented?
Boy, the lightbulb really screwed the moth up didn't it? Are there moths
on their way to the sun now going, "It's gonna be worth it!"
~ Bill Hicks
Reply to: