Re: OS Platform for firewall (...the answer is..)

[Paul Krumviede]

Curtice Hardy wrote:
> 
> Well, that would depend....  I would say that it should support the
> following(Out of the box, without any addons....
> 
> 1. Advanced NAT (One to one, One to many, And in todays world even NAT
>         based on service) Also, it Shouldn't be a problem to forward
> services to
>         inside NON-Windows(Read Unix servers).

As far as I'm concerned, NAT is an evil idea, and I'd avoid systems
that do it. If I really want to use it, I'll turn it on. I accept
that others may think differently, but any discussion of core
functionality should not add extras (and note that many people
want or use NAT to either avoid arguing with ARIN or RIPE or
APNIC about how many addresses they need or because they don't
want to renumber).

-paul
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]