Re: Does IPv6 preclude use of a NAT gateway?
On 12/07/11 19:56, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 06:57:39PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> 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. :-)
>
> Well, I found it in https://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=setup-3668841:
I suggest you read the material you quote.... see the last comment?
(I've made similar mistakes myself)
Posted by someone who checks their facts - they point you at one of the
relevant RFCs:-
[quote]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4294#section-
[/quote]
Note also the comment/query about Microsoft's IPv6 stack - which *does*
include IPSec (so does the GNU-Linux stack, which is better documented).
Another poster asked about DHCP - though not necessary due to the
stateless nature of IPv6, their is such a beast (DHCPv6) - and as a
standards compliant OS should - it is supported in Linux :-)
> „IPv6 was intended to require IPSEC support. Unfortunately most IPv6
<snipped>
>
> Besides this message I heard it from another source.
How does that make to original unsupported opinion more authoritative??
>
> Shade and sweet water!
>
> Stephan
>
Any number of broken implementations or, um, opinions don't change that. :-)
The opinions you've quoted may well be right - I'm certainly not an
authority, but I'll stick to standards I can verify.
NOTE: despite the doubts expressed by the second post in the page you
quoted - the Linux IPv6 stack does support IPSec, and unlike Microsoft's
stack - it does have the privacy extensions enabled, and it's well
documented.
Useful refs:-
http://www.isc.org/
http://www.ipv6tf.org/
http://wiki.chapters.isoc.org/tiki-index.php?page=IPv6+FAQ (yes, there
was an IPv5!)
Cheers
--
Well, you know, some people believe they're Napoleon. That's fine.
Beliefs are neat. Cherish them, but don't share them like they're the truth.
~ Bill Hicks
Reply to: