News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will be ugly. Parent comment

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.)
[ Parent | on HN ]
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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will ... by blasdel on Thursday September 30, 2010 @07:27PM (#1745292)
I'd much prefer that noone calls any piece of software a 'firewall' ever again. It's been over-applied to the point of meaninglessness.
[ Parent | on HN ]