Sadly a lot of places imply that Nat provides some form of security when it really wasn't meant for that usage. On Aug 23, 2012 5:36 PM, "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
Andrew Cassidy <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> wrote:
I'm all for IPv6, just get your firewalling right, depending on your OS it doesn't always share rules automatically. Don't forget your machine will usually have at least 3 addresses too, which can of course be bound and firewalled individually.
If you need a firewall, then you do indeed have to make sure that it's configured appropriately for both IPv4 and IPv6. There are lazy/uninformed administrators who think they can rely on NAT as a substitute for a firewall.
I have native IPv6 access via my ISP and FreeSWITCH works well with it. I have also used FreeSWITCH over IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels with surprisingly good reliability, but in recent years with the native IPv6 this hasn't been necessary except occasionally with a laptop on an IPv4-only network.
Deployment in a home office environment was easy enough, except initially for the DHCPv6 prefix delegation and routing over the ppp connection to the ISP.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org