Re: Free NAT for NT?

Darren Reed (darrenrreed.wattle.id.au)
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:29:39 +1000 (EST)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Ryan Russell: "Re: Hardware vs. Software firewall reliability"
• Previous message: David Klann: "Re: Hardware vs. Software firewall reliability"
• In reply to: Bill Stout: "Hardware vs. Software firewall reliability"
• Next in thread: Tyler Singletary: "Re: Free NAT for NT?"

In some email I received from Carl Brewer, sie wrote:
> I'm not coming down on Robert here!
>
> <rant>
> It's a shame that M$ are providing NAT, which even they know
> is a bad technology (it was a M$ employee that wrote the IETF
> case against NAT), and not IPv6. Please don't lose focus! NAT
> is a short-term ugly broken hack, push your vendor(s) for IPv6
> support!
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-nat-implications-04.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts-ietf-iab-case-for-ipv6-04.txt
>
> If you're using, or worse, planning to use, NAT and you haven't
> read the above two documents, read them :)
> </rant>
>
> Carl

I wonder, whether NAT will be resurrected from the dead by someone
who believes in the added security of address translation. Indeed,
security through obscurity, but as another part of defense, it does
help hide the real source of Internet activity which an attacker
might wish to target. Of course this only holds so long as the NAT
is one-way or asymetric.

Darren

• Next message: Ryan Russell: "Re: Hardware vs. Software firewall reliability"
• Previous message: David Klann: "Re: Hardware vs. Software firewall reliability"
• In reply to: Bill Stout: "Hardware vs. Software firewall reliability"
• Next in thread: Tyler Singletary: "Re: Free NAT for NT?"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Sep 09 1999 - 17:22:12 CDT