> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Joe Greco wrote: > > In our neighbourhood, we don't have a high crime rate. Despite that, > > if we saw someone walking from house to house, trying doorknobs, we'd > > call the cops. The fact that everyone has locks on their doors does > > not make it all right for someone to go around from house to house to > > see if they're all locked. > > However, it's not illegal, AFAIK. It's only illegal if you enter. Either > that, or I'm gonna go prosecute some Girl Scouts.
It may not be technically illegal, but I'd bet hard cash that our local cops would find a way to put you in cuffs and haul you in. Girl Scouts are probably going to be treated a bit different than random adults who have no reasonable explanation to be trying the knobs. Girl Scouts could possibly be excused as not knowing any better. > More relatedly, is there some sort of obligation with IPv6 to move all of > your NAT'ed hosts away from NAT? No. There's also no obligation with a loaded shotgun to not point it at your foot. You can do it, you can pull the trigger. NAT has many drawbacks, especially including a whole bunch of shortcomings where workarounds are required for various protocols due to our insistence on inflicting the brokenness of NAT on the world. These are all well documented. http://www.circleid.com/posts/nat_just_say_no/ etc. > Just because you can doesn't make it a > good idea. I agree, NAT != security, but it does give one a single point > to manage those hosts behind it. So's a firewall. Nobody is suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. But the bathwater's old and stinky, and is a severe impediment to growth at this point. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.