[112641] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Beckman)
Wed Mar 11 18:27:55 2009
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:27:44 -0400
From: Peter Beckman <beckman@angryox.com>
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
In-Reply-To: <200903112132.n2BLWHBv006094@aurora.sol.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
> In our neighbourhood, we don't have a high crime rate. Despite that,
> if we saw someone walking from house to house, trying doorknobs, we'd
> call the cops. The fact that everyone has locks on their doors does
> not make it all right for someone to go around from house to house to
> see if they're all locked.
However, it's not illegal, AFAIK. It's only illegal if you enter. Either
that, or I'm gonna go prosecute some Girl Scouts.
More relatedly, is there some sort of obligation with IPv6 to move all of
your NAT'ed hosts away from NAT? Just because you can doesn't make it a
good idea. I agree, NAT != security, but it does give one a single point
to manage those hosts behind it.
Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
