nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: Peter Beckman <beckman () angryox com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:27:44 -0400
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
In our neighbourhood, we don't have a high crime rate. Despite that, if we saw someone walking from house to house, trying doorknobs, we'd call the cops. The fact that everyone has locks on their doors does not make it all right for someone to go around from house to house to see if they're all locked.
However, it's not illegal, AFAIK. It's only illegal if you enter. Either that, or I'm gonna go prosecute some Girl Scouts. More relatedly, is there some sort of obligation with IPv6 to move all of your NAT'ed hosts away from NAT? Just because you can doesn't make it a good idea. I agree, NAT != security, but it does give one a single point to manage those hosts behind it. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman () angryox com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Alec Berry (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jeremy L. Gaddis (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Alec Berry (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Brett Charbeneau (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Marcus Reid (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Abley (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Brett Charbeneau (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Mike Lewinski (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Peter Beckman (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Herrin (Mar 11)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? J. Oquendo (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Allen Simpson (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 11)