[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ok; let's have the "Does DNAT contribute to Security" argument one more time...
- Subject: Ok; let's have the "Does DNAT contribute to Security" argument one more time...
- From: jeff-kell at utc.edu (Jeff Kell)
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:12:54 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CAGFn2k0tLEQAH_MLTZs=2TU0reMmaDL79k1Vp2+-Vn_m7A8AnQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAGFn2k0tLEQAH_MLTZs=2TU0reMmaDL79k1Vp2+-Vn_m7A8AnQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/14/2011 4:21 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> For the common good it doesn't matter if the "NAT is good" guys are
> right or the "NAT is useless" guys are right, as they both fail to
> decrease the numbers of their opposing parts. We must get IPv6 done
> for both of them.
Hehehe... depending on your ISPs / transit providers / border
technology level, putting critical infrastructure on IPv6[only] might be
the safest most unreachable network of all :)
Jeff