nanog mailing list archives
Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 16:19:48 -0700
Not exactly, in your scenario you are counting on the firewall to block hostile traffic destined for some ips. If they are Natted, it is more work to compromise those stations.
and if you change your name you are less likely to be mugged. randy
Current thread:
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ..., (continued)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Bob K (Sep 06)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Roeland Meyer (Sep 06)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Adam McKenna (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Circusnuts (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Alex Bligh (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Jared Mauch (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Bob K (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Jared Mauch (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Daniel Senie (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Brian Whalen (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Randy Bush (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Scott Gifford (Sep 10)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Adam McKenna (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Adam McKenna (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Marc Slemko (Sep 09)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Mike Batchelor (Sep 10)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Joel Baker (Sep 10)