Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:32:37 +0400
From:      Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com>
Cc:        Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer
Message-ID:  <195468703.20130415143237@serebryakov.spb.ru>
In-Reply-To: <CA%2B7WWSeODqdP1_7MDs6=BiGF%2BDSR62w21uu4hS3PtTDBkmshsg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20130411201805.GD76816@FreeBSD.org> <20130414160648.GD96431@in-addr.com> <36562.1365960622.5652758659450863616@ffe10.ukr.net> <201304150025.07337.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd@ijs.si> <951943801.20130415141536@serebryakov.spb.ru> <CA%2B7WWSeODqdP1_7MDs6=BiGF%2BDSR62w21uu4hS3PtTDBkmshsg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Kimmo.
You wrote 15 =D0=B0=D0=BF=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F 2013 =D0=B3., 14:26:40:

>> MM> ... and as far as I can tell none of them is currently usable
>> MM> on an IPv6-only FreeBSD (like protecting a host with sshguard),
>> MM> none of them supports stateful NAT64, nor IPv6 prefix translation :(
>>  IPv6 prefix translation?! AGAIN!? FML. I've thought, that IPv6 will
>> render all that NAT nightmare to void. I hope, IPv6 prefix translation
>> will not be possible never ever!

KP> Things like ftp-proxy(8) will need address translation even with IPv6.
  ftp-proxy is solution to help IPv4 NAT. Why do we need it when every
device could have routable IPv6? Of course, _every_ device should be
protected by border firewall (stateful and IPv6-enabled), but FTP
server should have special rules for it to allow traffic pass, not
some "proxy".

 And, yes, NAT64 will be useful for sure, but it is another story,
not IPv6<->IPv6 translation.

--=20
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?195468703.20130415143237>