nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:27:06 -0500 (EST)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> The point I'm trying to get across to you is that your security does NOT come from NAT. It comes from the stateful inspection mechanism and the policies you set within that stateful inspection mechanism. The unfortunate problem is that an entire generation of engineers has grown up not knowing the difference between stateful inspection and NAT because hardly any products contained stateful inspection without NAT and stateful inspection with address translation is a mouthful and NAT is a syllable.
The point you *appear* to be trying to make is that *NO* security comes from NAT, and that is not a defensible argument. If that's not what you mean to say, you might want to reexamine your phrasing. :-) Cheers, -- jra
Current thread:
- Re: quietly...., (continued)
- Re: quietly.... Brandon Butterworth (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Tim Franklin (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Tony Finch (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Brandon Butterworth (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Jimmy Hess (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Derek J. Balling (Feb 03)
- RE: quietly.... Jamie Bowden (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jimmy Hess (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Brandon Butterworth (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Brandon Butterworth (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jay Ashworth (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Jay Ashworth (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Pekka Savola (Feb 04)
- Re: quietly.... Jay Ashworth (Feb 13)