On 09/09/2010 04:25 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 9/9/2010 2:01 PM, James Knott wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On 9/9/2010 1:11 PM, James Knott wrote:
You don't have to you'll still have a router to connect to your ISP.
Wait, why would I need a router?
Seems to me all I would need was a firewall.
People have been vociferously pointing out in this thread that a router is not a firewall. Was that you?
A router has always been necessary to move between IP (or IPX) networks. NAT came later. When you use the default (or other) route, you have to pass through a router. In the very early days, a computer was used as the router, just like we often use an old computer running Linux for one. Firewalls are often part of a router, but don't have to be. You can also have a bridging firewall that isolates two networks, on the same subnet, so that traffic between them is filtered or between the router and local network. It sounds to me like you should be doing some reading up on routers and firewalls. That might eliminate some of the confusion you're experiencing.
See! There you go with that snark again.
With a globally unique address why do I need a router on the end of my cable modem?
Exactly! Why not just connect a hub or a switch to your IPv6-enabled cable modem? No need for a router at all! Then, all of our widgets can be hanging out in the breeze with the big boyz. If you wanted centralized firewalling, a bridged firewall between modem and hub would work, right? Can I go down to Fry's to pick up a consumer-grade bridged firewall yet? Does IPv6 render the concept of a "subnet" moot? Or will subnets/routers still be needed to confine the scope of ARP broadcasts and for geographical port distribution? I need to learn more about IPv6 theory and operation... Regards, Lew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org