[134860] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 12 14:07:19 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D2DDCBA.1050304@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:03:09 -0800
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 01:17 p.m., George Bonser wrote:
>
>> But your security person needs to shift their thinking because the
>> purpose of NAT and private addressing is to conserve IP address, not to
>> provide security. With IPv6, the concept of NAT goes away.
>
> You have heard about NAT66, right?
>
Yes... Hopefully it was just a bad dream.
NATing IPv6 doesn't do anything good. There's no benefit, only cost.
Owen
