|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:51:17 -0700 From: Crist Clark <crist.clark@globalstar.com> In-reply-to: <42CD8571.4060009@nrg4u.com> To: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com> Cc: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, nanog@merit.edu Reply-To: crist.clark@globalstar.com Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > > > >> I'd have to counter with "the assumption that NATs are going >> away with v6 is a rather risky assumption." Or perhaps I >> misunderstood your point... > > > There is one thing often overlooked with regard to NAT. That is, > it has prevented many network based worms for millions of home > users behind NAT devices. Unfortunatly this fact is overlooked > all the time. NAT has its downsides but also upsides sometimes. And the counter point to that argument is that the sparse population of IPv6 space will make systematic scanning by worms an ineffective means of propagation. -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark@globalstar.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |