3 ms·
Well, even if NAT went away, you would still have to contend with stateful firewalls (i.e. those that only allow inbound packets from established connections).
by agwa 15y ago
Well, even if NAT went away, you would still have to contend with stateful firewalls (i.e. those that only allow inbound packets from established connections).
This article explains it pretty well (mainly on the second page):
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/05/ipv6-firewall-mixed-blessing.ars http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/05/ipv6-firewall-m...
- alexchamberlain 15y agoIt depends where firewalls are implemented in x years time. (In the context of the home) At the moment, people rely on their routers to provide a decent firewall rather than configuring their computers properly. That being said... if firewalls "move" onto computers, it is "easy" to open ports.
- agwa 15y agoYeah, good point. Personally, I'm torn on whether I would ever want to give up my whole-network firewall, especially when there's a wireless network in the mix. My servers' ssh logs are choke full of brute force attempts. I would hate to waste my wireless bandwidth and battery life on such attack attempts. On the other hand, IPv6 address space will be so sparse that maybe such attacks won't be practical...
- alexchamberlain 15y agoHave you got password logins turned off?