[128016] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Akyol, Bora A)
Thu Jul 22 22:54:26 2010
From: "Akyol, Bora A" <bora@pnl.gov>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, "matthew@matthew.at" <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:53:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <249A55AC-0EB0-4D91-91F0-520FA1EAFD8C@delong.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/"firewall" in place i=
s a security feature,
I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.
In all reality, NAT boxes do work for 99% of customers out there.
Bora
On 7/22/10 7:34 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to
make NAT66 unnecessary?
Owen
