nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 NAT
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:56:53 -0800
Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
... All hairsplitting aside, given that the term NAT these days is mostly used in a PAT (particularly in a customer connecting to the I) context, what isn't secure about?
mangling the header doesn't provide any security, and if you believe it does, do the following exercise: Configure a static NAT entry to map all packets from the public side to a single host on the private side. Show how that mapping provides any more security than what would exist by putting the public address on that host. A stateful filter that is automatically populated by traffic originated from the private side is what is providing 'security'. That function existed in routers long before NAT was specified by the IETF (see RFC1044 for vendor). Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 NAT Michael . Dillon (Oct 30)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Owen DeLong (Oct 30)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Stephen Sprunk (Oct 30)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Scott McGrath (Oct 31)
- RE: IPv6 NAT Tony Hain (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Scott McGrath (Oct 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: IPv6 NAT Kuhtz, Christian (Oct 30)
- RE: IPv6 NAT Tony Hain (Oct 30)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Stephen Sprunk (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Owen DeLong (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Joe Abley (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Eliot Lear (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Owen DeLong (Oct 31)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Paul Timmins (Oct 31)
- RE: IPv6 NAT Tony Hain (Oct 30)