[155005] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Thu Jul 19 05:43:55 2012
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:41:59 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Chuck Church <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <009801cd6557$503c6d70$f0b54850$@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Nanog' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
> I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network
> with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It
> never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside
-----------------------------------
> world adds an extra layer of complexity to a hacker trying to access it.
> It's not a be-all/end-all, but it's a plus. A hacker who's partially in the
> network may try to access network 'X', but it routes to the outside world,
> tripping IDSs...
>
> Chuck
Never is a -very- long time.
That said, -IF- DoD did authorize another party/contractor to utilize
some DoD address blocks, its not clear if that LOA would be public.
/bill
