[31049] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When IPv6 ... if ever?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Brown)
Thu Sep 7 11:20:29 2000
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:18:14 -0400
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet@graffiti.com>
To: Dana Hudes <dhudes@hudes.org>
Cc: batz <batsy@vapour.net>, smd@clock.org, nanog@merit.edu,
nathan@terminus.com, rmeyer@MHSC.com
Message-ID: <20000907111813.A26822@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009071105010.10675-100000@advsol4.dsl.concentric.net>; from dhudes@hudes.org on Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:05:50AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, batz wrote:
>>
>> Has there been any studies done on IPv6 as an alternative to NAT?
>>
>> Besides IPSec, dynamic addressing, authentication and improved
>> security, are there other benefits to deploying IPv6 instead of
>> NAT?
>
>On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:05:50AM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:
>
>NAT is more than just a means to ease IP address space use.
>The use of a dynamic NAT pool allows the hiding of internal IP
>topology, thereby increasing security.
for people that use nat to increase the number of machines that can
access network services, ipv6 can do that too, but without nat. for
people who want to use nat to increase their security, ipv6 can do
that too.
or maybe some people just really like using nat?
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
