3 ms·
> But doesn't a stateful IPv6 firewall introduce the same problems as NAT? Depends on what it does and how it's configured. If the whole internet ends up runni
by zurn 12y ago
> But doesn't a stateful IPv6 firewall introduce the same problems as NAT?
Depends on what it does and how it's configured. If the whole internet ends up running with default-deny stateful IPv6 firewalls, then that's a setback, but you still have global addressibility if not reachability.
> Won't I still have to use keepalive packets or protocols like PCP to actually use P2P?
Even IPv6 + PCP is a real improvement.
Default-allow on the consumer routers + host based firewalls would be much better though.
- MrBuddyCasino 12y ago> Default-allow on the consumer routers I remember the time of 56k modems. Port scans were fun back then. Sucked, would not dial-up again. Host based firewalls: for some reason this sends the networking neckbeards into rage mode, god knows why. I'd say its slightly weaker than blocking everything on the router.
- api 12y agoIn practice neither is strong. I worked in infosec for a while. Nearly every real-world threat we saw came in via HTTP, IMAP/POP3, or some other "pull" mechanism. Firewall might as well not have even been there. Anyone who thinks "firewall == security" is terribly out of date. I'd say the only thing firewalls still provide protection against is pure remote vulnerabilities in common system services. Those still appear occasionally, but are more rare than they used to be. With better service isolation, coding standards, and authentication they'll become even rarer.