Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ?

[Willem Jan Withagen]

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