Thus wrote Keith Moore ([email protected]):
> It's understandable that network operators resist change - they're having
> enough trouble coping with the network as it is. But if I were running a
> company and my network operator came to me and said "I want to cripple our
> company's network so that it cannot easily support new applications that
> might be valuable to us", I'd fire him on the spot. Which is pretty much
> what NAT does.
Question back, very concrete and not at all concerned with networking
ideals:
Do you want your bank to allow you to attempt opening a connection to any
of their networked devices, trusting that the device itself will not have
any bugs that will allow a hacker to gain access to your bank account data?
Please keep in mind that a sizeable fraction of these machines will
be some variant of Windows.
Do you want your electricity provider also to have their network entirely
open for end-to-end traffic, trusting each and every host to keep itself
secure?
Your hospital? You know that many life-sustaining machines in a hospital
are networked these days?
regards,
spz
--
[email protected] (S.P.Zeidler)
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
