[146497] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ok; let's have the "Does DNAT contribute to Security" argument
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Kell)
Mon Nov 14 19:13:59 2011
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:12:54 -0500
From: Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu>
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k0tLEQAH_MLTZs=2TU0reMmaDL79k1Vp2+-Vn_m7A8AnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11/14/2011 4:21 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> For the common good it doesn't matter if the "NAT is good" guys are
> right or the "NAT is useless" guys are right, as they both fail to
> decrease the numbers of their opposing parts. We must get IPv6 done
> for both of them.
Hehehe... depending on your ISPs / transit providers / border
technology level, putting critical infrastructure on IPv6[only] might be
the safest most unreachable network of all :)
Jeff
