IPv6 Buzz 021: NAT Isn’t Necessary For Security: Answering Listener Questions

Ed
Horley

Tom
Coffeen

Scott
Hogg

Listen, Subscribe & Follow:
Apple Podcasts Spotify Overcast Pocket Casts RSS

In today’s IPv6 Buzz we answer listener questions about our favorite addressing protocol, including

  • I thought NAT was necessary for security? Isn’t my network less secure without NAT at the edge?
  • I tend to disable IPv6 whenever I can. Is that bad?
  • How feasible is it to scan an IPv6 network to discover devices?

Thanks for listening (and keep the questions coming)!

Show Links:

RFC 4864: Local Network Protection for IPv6 – IETF

RFC 6724: Default Address Selection for IPv6 – IETF

3 Ways to Ruin Your Future Network with IPv6 Unique Local Addresses – Infoblox

Your Hosts:

Share this episode

Join Our Slack

Chat all things networking, cloud and security in the Packet Pushers Slack community. It's free and open to everyone.

JOIN 💬

Get Our Weekly Content Summary

The free Packet Capture newsletter lists every podcast, video and blog we published that week.

Subscribe

Leave a Comment

Comments: 1

  1. Lawrence on

    As far as scanning a /64 taking forever I agree, but since solicited node multicast only uses the bottom 24 bits, would it not be feasible to scan that /24 provided you are L2 adjacent and work from there? Along with a router advertisement, you could get some good information.

    Reply