[111394] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Wed Feb 4 23:53:23 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:53:08 +1300
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Nathan Ward
>
> On 5/02/2009, at 16:58, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> Since NAT == stateful firewall with packet mangling, it would be much
>> easier to drop the packet mangling and just use a stateful firewall.
>> You are just reinforcing the incorrect belief that "NAT == security,
>> no-NAT == no-security".
>
> Not entirely. There was a lengthy and heated debate on this list
> about 6 months ago, where the point was raised that many people like
> to use NAT because it provides some level of anonymity in thier
> network. Obviously this only applies for networks with enough people
> that that has an effect.
>
> IPv6 has privacy addresses to address this concern.
