On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> >Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise >Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously >without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial >statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically >wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry. You've said this before, and it is still an absurdly over-broad statement. Many security professionals have deployed enterprise firewalls to their satisfaction without NAT-PT. We had this debate, what, a month ago? Your position hasn't changed. No new use cases have emerged. Are we done here? Lee
