nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 NAT
From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh () sbcglobal net>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:29:30 -0800 (PST)
After having read many of these posts I realized there are chips out there now, oboard that do last mile protection at the gate level which eliminates any of this and the products can come preconfigured for this or not depends on what you want to pay for..... -Henry Michael.Dillon () radianz com wrote:
This does not mean we should NAT everything, since I use some of those protocols. But if every Joe User had a DLink NAT box in front of his Winbloze box, the Internet would be a safer place. And you know it.
You're forgetting Rob Thomas's peripatetic presentation in Chicago. Not to mention the guy whose SSH session was outed by a keylogger. Check http://www.safer-networking.org/ for more on spyware and trojans. If this was the only way the black hats could wreak havoc then we would be seeing a lot more of it. I think that the only thing which will make the Internet a safer place is time and hard work. We have to put in the effort to address *ALL* the weaknesses until we've raised the bar so high that only the toughest black hats have the time, skills and energy to break the weakest link. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 NAT, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Paul Timmins (Nov 01)
- RE: IPv6 NAT Michel Py (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT David Lesher (Nov 01)
- RE: IPv6 NAT james (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Bill Owens (Nov 01)
- Wiltel Connectivity Issues Brian Boles (Nov 02)
- OT: RE: IPv6 NAT Paul Timmins (Nov 01)
- Re: OT: RE: IPv6 NAT Owen DeLong (Nov 01)