[57126] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: is this true or... ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lars Erik Gullerud)
Sat Mar 29 13:43:15 2003
From: Lars Erik Gullerud <lerik@nolink.net>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20030329012347.AAA25341@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Date: 29 Mar 2003 19:42:39 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 02:24, David Schwartz wrote:
> The laws require an "intent to" "conceal" the "origin or
> destination". NAT would not count, as the intent is to share a scarce
> resource, not to conceal the origin or destination -- the origin is
> only concealed to the extent necessary to accomplish the sharing.
I disagree - I could point you to a bunch of companies who are running
NAT _precisely_ to "conceal origin or destination". Not because they are
short of address space (since a lot of them even do 1:1 NAT), but
because they feel it adds to their security measures to obscure and
conceal their internal addressing and topology. Don't forget all the
self-appointed "security experts" out there with very varying degrees of
clue. I would imagine that type of setup would be very hard to argue
falls outside the text of this bill.
/leg
