nanog mailing list archives
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell () martin fl us>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:46:02 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
No, the reason we have NAT is because it's a lot easier for novice network administrators to divvy up and route 10/8 than it is 208.x.x/20. Any leaf network can get all the non-portable addresses they want, for a price. There's also a general perception that NAT increases security; some "security" companies go so far as to say NAT removes the need for a firewall. It's amazing how many network admins believe this.
Some also say that firewalls/nats remove the need to secure your systems.
Current thread:
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20, (continued)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Joe Abley (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 David R. Conrad (Apr 10)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 mike harrison (Apr 09)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John Fraizer (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John A. Tamplin (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Joe Abley (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Adrian Chadd (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Henry Yen (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 10)