[36544] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Maxwell)
Tue Apr 10 15:57:15 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:46:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Cc: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>,
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20010410122906.N17498@defiant.dfw.nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010410154540.27307O-100000@da1server>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 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.
> Any leaf network can get all the non-portable addresses they want, for a
> price.
>
> 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. It's amazing how many network admins believe this.
Some also say that firewalls/nats remove the need to secure your systems.
