[134856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Jan 12 13:00:35 2011
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:58:16 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C286B30FED9@ex-mb-1.corp.atlasnetworks.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/12/2011 11:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>
> I'd argue that the above has everything to do with firewalling, and nothing to do with NAT.
>
I agree, but both effectively handle the job. My point is that just
because we have lots of infections behind NAT, doesn't mean that NAT (or
a firewall) doesn't still serve a purpose.
> Slightly OT: It boggles the mind a bit when I find desktop shops -not- using imaging. I would think most people would prefer not to stare at OS install screens - and when you can blast out a fully patched XP image easily in sub-10 minutes, the ROI is staggering.
Hardware drivers?
Jack
