From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 29 07:32:24 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CF5F9B9;
 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:32:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.digiware.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:4cb8:90:ffff::3])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF475227B;
 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:32:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rack1.digiware.nl (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDB5153A51;
 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:32:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at digiware.nl
Received: from smtp.digiware.nl ([127.0.0.1])
 by rack1.digiware.nl (rack1.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id aJ7v8KRmmdwK; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:4cb8:3:1:e9f0:504a:6a3a:c776] (unknown
 [IPv6:2001:4cb8:3:1:e9f0:504a:6a3a:c776])
 by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2801534C0;
 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53D74DEC.3020104@digiware.nl>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:31:56 +0200
From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>
Organization: Digiware Management b.v.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, 
 Darren Reed <darrenr@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ?
References: <201407261843.s6QIhcx4008597@slippy.cwsent.com>
 <53D61AC6.5030305@freebsd.org>
 <CAN6yY1uHJn4xA-5zFr4fZez3FyXi7tT0LmhyR8yWkqG7k1A+=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1uHJn4xA-5zFr4fZez3FyXi7tT0LmhyR8yWkqG7k1A+=A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:32:24 -0000

On 2014-07-29 0:07, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> And all IPv6 NAT is evil and should be cast into (demonic residence of your
> choosing) on sight!
>
> NAT on IPv6 serves no useful purpose at all. It only serves to complicate
> things and make clueless security officers happy. It adds zero security. It
> is a great example of people who assume that NAT is a security feature in
> IPv4 (it's not) so it should also be in IPv6.
......
 > So putting support for NAT66 or any IPv6 NAT into a firewall is just 
 > making things worse. Please don't do it!

Well said....

I'm actually rather relieved that natd can/should go away.

Stops giving me migraines with all those special protocl cases that 
don't like to be natted.. Which of course started as early as FTP.

--WjW