Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:22:47 -0700
Bill Stewart <nonobvious () gmail com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > > Here's an exercise.  Wipe a PC.  Put it on that cable modem with no firewall.  Install XP on it.  See if you can 
> > > get any service packs installed before the box is infected.
> > 1.      Yes, I can.  I simply didn't put an IPv4 address on it. ;-)
> > 2.      I wouldn't hold XP up as the gold standard of hosts here.
>
> One of my coworkers was IPv6ing his home network.  He had to turn off
> the Windows firewall on the machine with the IPv6 tunnel for a couple
> of minutes to install some stubborn software.  Then he had to reimage
> the box because it was pwned, and he's pretty sure that the infection
> came in over the IPv6 tunnel, not the hardware-firewalled IPv4.

Your friend should learn about causation verses correlation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Every noticed how people who have car accidents got out of bed that
morning?


> -- 
> ----
>              Thanks;     Bill
>
> Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
> And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.