Re: The argument for writing a general purpose NAT for IPv6

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Apr 18, 2007, at 15:35, Gert Doering wrote:
> I share the sentiment that "unmanaged networks and stateful  
> firewalls" is a problematic scenario, but it seems that this is  
> what we *have* (due to not-so-well informed decision processes).

I don't think I would agree with this characterization of how we have  
arrived at the present situation.  As the authors of draft-ietf-nap  
have noted, the situation is the result of the most informed  
community of Internet experts in the world, the IETF, recognizing its  
own technical consensus about the need for stateful firewalls in  
residential gateways.

If anything, I would have to accept my share of personal  
responsibility for my involvement in allowing Apple to ship the first  
release of firmware for the AirPort Extreme base station *without*  
the stateful firewall protecting its unmanaged local network.  This  
was clearly an uninformed decision, and Apple was roundly disparaged  
in the technical press for it-- presumably by well-informed critics.   
This mistake might have been avoided if I had seen draft-ietf-nap  
sooner than I did.


--
j h woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>