nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:53:08 +1300
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone. Begin forwarded message:
From: Nathan Ward On 5/02/2009, at 16:58, Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net> wrote:Since NAT == stateful firewall with packet mangling, it would be much easier to drop the packet mangling and just use a stateful firewall. You are just reinforcing the incorrect belief that "NAT == security, no-NAT == no-security".Not entirely. There was a lengthy and heated debate on this list about 6 months ago, where the point was raised that many people like to use NAT because it provides some level of anonymity in thier network. Obviously this only applies for networks with enough people that that has an effect.IPv6 has privacy addresses to address this concern.
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Kaufman (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Osmon (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Palmer (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mohacsi Janos (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)