On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:36:38AM -0800, Joe wrote: > bofh wrote: > >On 1/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> that the usual pack of idiots on misc@ can't contribut adequatly > >>agree > >> > >>Remember that dimwit "I do let the windows machine have web contact to > >>the outside" > >>who thinks simple packet filtering will keep his windows "children" > >>safe.Real 7337,whatever > >>that is. > > > >Oh, come now, everyone knows that doesn't work. What really works is > >- NAT!!! Yes, really! *smirk* We have a NotWork engineer who thinks > >nat is the answer to everything. The useless excuse for an oxygen > >sink even wanted to NAT our public IPs in our DR site instead of > >routing it in. Of course, for a "I am CCNP, except that cisco lost my > >paperwork" person who can't even set a damned default route on a 6509, > >natting _is_ the best way to do things, since *he* didn't have to do > >it. > > > > > whats sad is how many people will never let go of NAT after they migrate > to ipv6. >
_if_ such a migration ever takes pace. I think IPV6 is a solution that was too late for it's problem. Many large companies are using non routeable blocks as their internal address space, thus the need for a larger address space has decreased, if not vanished. At least until the net needs to extend off planet :-) -- Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
