[111391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roger Marquis)
Wed Feb 4 23:41:18 2009
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:39:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.86058.1233797996.43406.nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they think
> if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a firewall.
NAT provides some security, often enough to make a firewall unnecessary.
It all depends on what's inside the edge device. But really, I've never
heard anyone seriously equate a simple NAT device with a firewall.
People do, and justifiably, equate NAT with the freedom to number, subnet,
and route their internal networks however they choose. To argue against
that freedom is anti-consumer. Continue to ignore consumer demand and the
marketplace will continue to respond accordingly.
Give consumers a choice (of NAT or not) and they will come (to IPv6). It's
just about as simple as that. Well, that and a few unresolved issues with
CAMs, routing tables, and such.
Roger Marquis
