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:
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008), (continued)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) David Andersen (Jul 08)
- Message not available
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Crist Clark (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Fred Baker (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Crist Clark (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) David Andersen (Jul 07)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Daniel Senie (Jul 09)
- RE: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Tony Hain (Jul 07)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 07)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Sean Doran (Jul 08)
- Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008) Joseph S D Yao (Jul 08)