North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Security gain from NAT
On 7/06/2007, at 3:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Roger Marquis" <[email protected]>I, for one, give up. No matter what you say I will never implement NAT, and you may or may not implement it if people make boxes that support it.
People keep saying that this device doesn't exist, infact it does. First let me say that vendors haven't failed, as they (for the most part) haven't tried yet. I'd consider them to have failed if they delivered a bunch of IPv6 boxes without SI, and that hasn't happened. (ok, Cisco delivered an IPv6 capable CPE in the 8xx series, but IPv6 on those things is hardly a consumer-configurable setting to enable.)
Anyway, my Apple Airport Extreme base station (the new draft-802.11n one) does IPv6 SI and IPv4 NAT perfectly fine, infact, that was the primary reason I bought it. It also does 6to4 or static tunnels if you don't have native IPv6. 6to4 with IPv6 SI is the default out of the box configuration. If you just configure the IPv4 stuff, you get IPv6 for free, by default.
IPv6 SI /was/ disabled by default in the original firmware, and while the firmware update is pretty hard to miss when configuring the thing (it pops up and says "new software, install?" or similar), I believe it leaves the SI checkbox where you'd left it - the new default only kicks in if you do a factory reset. However, I believe that new units ship with the new software, so I suspect it's not really a widespread problem in the grand scheme of things.
This was the first IPv6 capable consumer router, as far as I'm aware, and this issue was found and fixed within weeks. I've got no doubt that other vendors will learn from this mistake.
-- Nathan Ward
(Disclaimer: On reading my post it sounds like advertising - I don't work for, and am not otherwise affiliated with, Apple.)