nanog mailing list archives

RE: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)


From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 04:52:59 +0900


Mangling the header did not prevent the worms, lack of state did that. A
stateful filter that doesn't need to mangle the packet header is frequently
called a firewall (yes some firewalls still do, but that is by choice). 

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Andre Oppermann
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 4:42 AM
To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
Cc: dcrocker () bbiw net; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)


Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
 >
I'd have to counter with "the assumption that NATs are going
away with v6 is a rather risky assumption." Or perhaps I
misunderstood your point...

There is one thing often overlooked with regard to NAT.  That is,
it has prevented many network based worms for millions of home
users behind NAT devices.  Unfortunatly this fact is overlooked
all the time.  NAT has its downsides but also upsides sometimes.

--
Andre


Current thread: