nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:44:45 -0800
On Feb 9, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:31:57 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org> wrote:Non-NAT firewalls do have some appeal, because they don't need to manglethe packets, just passively observe them and open pinholes when appropriate.This is exactly the same with NAT and non-NAT -- making any anti-NAT arguments null.
And making the PRO-NAT arguments in this respect equally NULL. This was being touted as a benefit of NAT, not a reason not to do NAT. Your statement proves my point... It is NOT a reason to do NAT or a benefit derived from NAT.
In the case of NAT, the "helper" has to understand the protocol to know what traffic to map.In the case of a stateful firewalling ("non-NAT"), the "helper" has to understand the protocol to know what traffic to allow.Subtle difference, but in the end, the same thing... if your gateway doesn't know what you are doing, odds are it will interfere with it. In all cases, end-to-end transparency doesn't exist. (as has been the case for well over a decade.)
Right. This is the counterpoint to the argument that NAT is needed. You have
now agreed that it is not. Owen
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 Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Frank Bulk - iName.com (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 Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Newton (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Newton (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Newton (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 09)
- 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 Mark Andrews (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 09)