[111649] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mattinen)
Mon Feb 9 21:25:37 2009
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:24:13 -0800
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20090209211940.3f424c30@milhouse.peachfamily.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
John Peach wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:16:49 -0500
> "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The SOX auditor ought to know better. Any auditor that
>>> requires NAT is incompenent.
>> Sadly, there are many audit REQUIREMENTS explicitly naming NAT and
>> RFC1918 addressing ...
>
> SOX auditors are incompetent. I've been asked about anti-virus software
> on UNIX servers and then asked to prove that they run UNIX.........
Not just SOX. I vaguely remember something in PCI about NAT. It wouldn't
surprise me if every auditing thing involving computers said something
about requiring NAT. See my earlier comment about NAT=firewall.
~Seth
