[134615] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dobbins, Roland)
Fri Jan 7 20:04:40 2011
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: Nanog Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 01:02:51 +0000
In-Reply-To: <D338D1613B32624285BB321A5CF3DB2510A33A0615@ginga.ai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Deepak Jain wrote:
> There are now years of security dogma that says NAT is a good thing,=20
Actually, this isn't the case. There's some *security theater* dogma which=
makes totally unsupported claims about the supposed security benefits of N=
AT, but that's not quite the same thing.
;>
NAT has no inherent security benefits whatsoever, and quite a few security =
drawbacks. =20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid, with millions
of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but
just done by brute force and thousands of slaves.
-- Alan Kay
