In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Brim type
d:
Although address obfuscation through combining NAT with your firewall
can provide a small amount of additional security.
against which attacks ? it doesnt provide better privacy, or non
repudation, or access control, or any normal service
Jon, this is a nit, two digressions off the main thread, so I'll take it
off-list. More mail soon.
...Scott
On 4 Feb 2001 at 17:29 +, Jon Crowcroft apparently wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Brim type
d:
Although address obfuscation through combining NAT with your
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 10:50:08AM -0800, Grenville Armitage wrote:
Einar Stefferud wrote:
[..]
had my own home system and discovered that I had no interest in being
totally visible and accessible at all times, especially when I was
not always around to monitor things.
So,
Greg Minshall wrote:
absolutely. i was very happy when we moved from the previous world to the
(more or less pure) IP world.
i will be very happy when we move from the NAT world to the (more or less
pure) IPv6 world.
Greg (who wrote email gateways in a past life)
I think that it is a
Keith Moore wrote:
Ed,
We agree that the net has never been entirely homogeneous, and that it
would be a Bad Thing if people were forced to make their local nets
conform to someone's idea of the Right Way to do their networks.
Yes.
Thus, I have few problems with folks who want to use
Ed Gerck wrote:
[..]
Thus, we need to be able to cope with
diversity, not try to iron it out.
Depends why the diversity exists. Coping is the reaction
of people who feel they cannot change the underlying causes.
Apparently not everyone feels so powerless that NAT is their
only
Ed,
We agree that the net has never been entirely homogeneous, and that it
would be a Bad Thing if people were forced to make their local nets
conform to someone's idea of the Right Way to do their networks.
Thus, I have few problems with folks who want to use NATs within their
local networks
*
* In other words, that is why the Net never was and resists being be a homogeneous
* network. It would be a less efficient design.
But the lesson of the Internet is that efficiency is not the primary
consideration. Ability to grow and adapt to changing requirements is
the primary
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* In other words, that is why the Net never was and resists being be a homogeneous
* network. It would be a less efficient design.
But the lesson of the Internet is that efficiency is not the primary
consideration. Ability to grow and adapt to changing
BTW, a design that is too simple is not efficient, because it wastes
resources and does not allow what could otherwise be possible.
granted that there is such a thing as too simple an answer for
most design problems... but one can waste resources and be inflexible
much more easily by making
I too was a strong advocate and strongly disapproved of LANs that
were not openly connected with full capabilities to the net, until I
had my own home system and discovered that I had no interest in being
totally visible and accessible at all times, especially when I was
not always around to
11 matches
Mail list logo
