North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: Yes, but keep in mind that this benefit is completely unrelated to NAT's purpose as an address space extender. A stateful firewall with a very simple rule (permit anything originated from the inside, deny anything from outside except a few pesky protocols) would accomplish exactly the same goal.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. And it would be much easier to punch holes through when you needed to. From my perspective, the biggest benefit from home NAT devices is that they were a vehicle for delivering such a firewall to millions of windows boxes. Unfortunately, this drug comes with a number of harmful side effects, including nausea, blurred vision, and the inability to deploy a number of new protocols. -Dave
|