Timeline for With IPv6 do we need to use NAT anymore?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2019 at 10:25 | comment | added | Terry Horridge | Edited to clarify scope in larger networks | |
| Aug 17, 2019 at 10:20 | history | edited | Terry Horridge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 136 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2019 at 14:49 | comment | added | Terry Horridge | On second thoughts I think it should be on all perimeter firewalls. Broadcasting connection state between firewalls is a trivial addition to the data you need to share across the perimeter in any case. | |
| Aug 15, 2019 at 17:55 | comment | added | Terry Horridge | internetsociety.org/blog/2015/01/… Is the truncated link in the above comment | |
| Aug 15, 2019 at 12:25 | comment | added | Terry Horridge | I'm sticking my neck out here, but the IPV6 architects are doing themselves no favours by attempting to throw out NAT. The advice given in blogs such as this one: internetsociety.org/blog/2015/01/… is indicating to the community that the IETF do not understand security. That is the general opinion amongst security experts - IPv6 as it stands is a security black hole. | |
| Aug 14, 2019 at 15:11 | history | edited | Terry Horridge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2019 at 8:45 | history | edited | Terry Horridge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 378 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2019 at 8:17 | history | edited | Terry Horridge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 123 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2019 at 8:11 | history | edited | Terry Horridge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 123 characters in body
|
| Aug 13, 2019 at 22:50 | review | Late answers | |||
| Aug 13, 2019 at 22:52 | |||||
| Aug 13, 2019 at 22:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 13, 2019 at 22:40 | |||||
| Aug 13, 2019 at 22:32 | history | answered | Terry Horridge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |