nanog mailing list archives
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:41:59 +0000
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside
-----------------------------------
world adds an extra layer of complexity to a hacker trying to access it. It's not a be-all/end-all, but it's a plus. A hacker who's partially in the network may try to access network 'X', but it routes to the outside world, tripping IDSs... Chuck
Never is a -very- long time. That said, -IF- DoD did authorize another party/contractor to utilize some DoD address blocks, its not clear if that LOA would be public. /bill
Current thread:
- Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Cameron Byrne (Jul 17)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT TJ (Jul 17)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Justin M. Streiner (Jul 17)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Andrey Khomyakov (Jul 18)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT TJ (Jul 18)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Grant Ridder (Jul 18)
- RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Chuck Church (Jul 18)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Måns Nilsson (Jul 19)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Dobbins, Roland (Jul 25)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT bmanning (Jul 19)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Andrey Khomyakov (Jul 18)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT joel jaeggli (Jul 25)