Once upon a time, Tim via users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 08:32 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > There is no NAT for IPv6, but that's a feature. NAT doesn't really > > add any security; NAT is a combination of two things: a stateful > > firewall (which gives you the protection) and a packet mangler (which > > causes no end of problems). You can still have a stateful firewall > > with IPv6, you just don't need the packet mangler anymore. > > That's the first time I've ever seen anyone say a stateful firewall is > a part of NAT. Sure, systems may have both, but I wouldn't call one > part of the other. I've certainly used systems with NAT, going back to > Win98SE days, that had no firewall. Anything that does IPv4 NAT is performing the functions of a stateful firewall, plus packet mangling. You may not have control of the firewall, but it is inherently there. You cannot have NAT without the exact same state tracking and ALGs of a stateful firewall. -- Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
