Re: shared address space... a reality!

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

It may be easy to sell, but it's also fictitious.

NAT is antithetical to security, not beneficial to it.

Owen

On Mar 16, 2012, at 1:21 PM, cdel.firsthand.net wrote:

> NAT at the edge is one thing as it gives an easy to sell security proposition for the board. But CGN controlled by 
> whoever sitting between their NATs does the opposite. 
>
>
>
> Christian de Larrinaga
>
>
> On 16 Mar 2012, at 19:35, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Octavio Alvarez
> > <alvarezp () alvarezp ods org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:22:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> > > <christopher.morrow () gmail com> wrote:
> > > > NetRange:       100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
> > > > CIDR:           100.64.0.0/10
> > > > OriginAS:
> > > > NetName:        SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
> > >
> > > Weren't we supposed to *solve* the end-to-end connectivity problem,
> > > instead of just letting it live?
> >
> > "We" forgot to ask if all the stakeholders wanted it solved. Most
> > self-styled "enterprise" operators don't: they want a major control
> > point at the network border. Deliberately breaking end to end makes
> > that control more certain. Which is why they deployed IPv4 NAT boxen
> > long before address scarcity became an impactful issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
> > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004