quietly....

[jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> The point I'm trying to get across to you is that your security does
> NOT come from NAT. It comes from the stateful inspection mechanism and
> the policies you set within that stateful inspection mechanism. The
> unfortunate problem is that an entire generation of engineers has
> grown up not knowing the difference between stateful inspection and
> NAT because hardly any products contained stateful inspection without
> NAT and stateful inspection with address translation is a mouthful
> and NAT is a syllable.

The point you *appear* to be trying to make is that *NO* security comes
from NAT, and that is not a defensible argument.

If that's not what you mean to say, you might want to reexamine your
phrasing.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra