Re: Security gain from NAT

[Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>]

On 6/06/2007, at 2:53 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:

> > So now the cruft extends and embraces, and you have to play DNS
> > view games based on whether it's on company A's legacy net,
> > company B's legacy net, or the DMZ in between them, and start
> > poking around in the middle of DNS packets to tweak the replies
> > (which sort of guarantees you can't deploy DNSSEC).
>
> <IPv4 junk>

You clearly missed the start of this conversation, and my summaries  
in the last couple of days, about which I am not surprised.

We were discussing IPv6, the lack of NAT was brought up as being  
viewed as a blocker for security reasons, and solutions were  
presented so that it no longer is, assuming adequate education is  
provided.

--
Nathan Ward