On Mon, 22 May 2000, Robert McMahon wrote:
[SNIP]
> I would also say that the reason for employing NAT is not the same as
> employing ip masq. I don't believe NAT was designed to be a security
> mechanism, while ip masq was (as part of the proxy function).
>
I do not think proxies require ipmasq, which, if I understand this, is a
linux implementation only. And basiacally NAT/IPmasq is not a security
solution as proxies are, unless security through obscurity has become
functiuonally validated.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
