Re:There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will ...
by psuedonym on Thursday September 30, 2010 @10:04AM
(#1743279)
I think that's specifically why people will still be using routers. Nowadays, most single computers still are sitting behind routers, despite the fact that they don't actually "need" to, specifically for the firewall protection. It's a lot easier to plug into a router and forget it than it is to have to deal with setting up a firewall every time you reinstall your OS.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will ...
by wmf on Thursday September 30, 2010 @11:42AM
(#1743611)
If we're talking about a box that primarily performs firewalling, let's call it a "firewall" instead of a "router". (Although as I said above, routing is still necessary in IPv6.)
Re:There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will ...
by jrockway on Thursday September 30, 2010 @07:09PM
(#1745247)
It's still a router. It just doesn't do NAT.
FWIW, NAT is typically done by the firewalling code, whereas routing is done in separate code.
So "router" is always correct, but "firewall" does not always apply