[36539] in North American Network Operators' Group
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Tue Apr 10 14:19:59 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:06:23 -0700
Message-Id: <200104101806.LAA21190@ndk.shankland.org>
From: Jim Shankland <nanog@shankland.org>
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> No, the reason we have NAT is because it's a lot easier for novice
> network administrators to divvy up and route 10/8 than it is 208.x.x/20.
Only for novices :-)? And what if the alternative is not a /20, but
a /24, or even a /28?
> There's also a general perception that NAT increases security; some
> "security" companies go so far as to say NAT removes the need for a
> firewall.
Agreed that NAT does not remove the need for a firewall; but it *does*
increase security.
I have a machine behind a NAT; its IP address is 192.168.27.111.
It has an open telnet port; the root password is "rutabaga".
(It's on a completely different network than the one I'm sending this
email from, so don't bother trying to deduce anything from the mail
headers or my domain name.) I don't believe that I've just
compromised its security :-).
Jim Shankland
