Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

On Jun 26, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Jeff Woolsey wrote: Things sure are different now, aren't they? I remember having a whole class C from you guys for my half-dozen machines at home... That was a while ago... Not from me/us, and not since ARIN existed or cared about usage ;-) Meer.net before it

Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: #1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor lock-in. Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also accomplished through the use of PI addressing If you completely ignore the cost of routing table growth to give every

Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

On 7-Jun-2007, at 02:48, Brandon Butterworth wrote: #1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor lock-in. Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also accomplished through the use of PI addressing. True, diy PI (mmm, PI) is a major reason people use it for v4 a

Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

> > #1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor > > lock-in. > > > Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also accomplished > through the use of PI addressing. True, diy PI (mmm, PI) is a major reason people use it for v4 and why they'll want something similar for v6. N

Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

#1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor lock-in. Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also accomplished through the use of PI addressing. #2 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from add-on fees for addresses space. More FUD. The correct solution to thi

Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:49:21PM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote: > Problem is that NAT will not go away or even become less common in > IPv6 networks for a number of reasons. > > #1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor > lock-in. > > Consider the advantage of globally unique public

Re: Security gain from NAT: Top 5

Mark Smith wrote: For all those people who think IPv4 NAT is quite fine, I challenge them to submit RFCs to the IETF that resolve, without creating worse or more even more complicated problems, the list of problems here. All the IPv6 RFCs do ...