On Sunday 27 February 2005 11:40, Andre Tomt wrote:
> Connection tracking (as in stateful firewalling) do not a useful ipv6
> stack make.. The stack works fine, at least the stack provided in 2.6
> You seem to be fixed on the idea that a ipv6 stack has to have stateful
> firewalling, or else its utter crap, correct? :-)
No, I'll try to say this clearer.
The stack works fine in. And out. But for a useful virtual circuit you must
have something like connection tracking.
Remember what my issue is:
- I have a very tight firewall,
- I ping6 out,
- The firewall blocks the reply back, because the connection is stateless!
- Same with http, etc.
This means that I have to open for incoming, virtually every port I send
outgoing to, or else I do not get any replies. This is what I call
non-functional, because one does not open incoming ports, for the most part.
Why are you not having this problem?
> Connection tracking is on the way, currently a implementation exists in
> the netfilter.org patch-o-matic svn.
Is this reasonably solid? Does this operate on Layer 3, rather than Layer 2?
> Not all hosts need firewalling at all, or firewalling is provided by
> routers/firewalls for them. I use ipv6 in production networks, on Linux,
> without special patches.
Sorry, I disagree. The whole point of IPV6 is ubiquitous addressing. So
every single node must have a good firewall. In fact my router is
firewalling as well, so my LAN nodes are double-firewalled.
It is irresponsible to not firewall all nodes, as they are supposed to be
universally available with this paradigm.