nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Roger Marquis <marquis () roble com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:39:08 -0800 (PST)
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they think if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a firewall.
NAT provides some security, often enough to make a firewall unnecessary. It all depends on what's inside the edge device. But really, I've never heard anyone seriously equate a simple NAT device with a firewall. People do, and justifiably, equate NAT with the freedom to number, subnet, and route their internal networks however they choose. To argue against that freedom is anti-consumer. Continue to ignore consumer demand and the marketplace will continue to respond accordingly. Give consumers a choice (of NAT or not) and they will come (to IPv6). It's just about as simple as that. Well, that and a few unresolved issues with CAMs, routing tables, and such. Roger Marquis
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Abley (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Chris Adams (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Abley (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mohacsi Janos (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Frank Bulk - iName.com (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 09)