On 2/16/24 5:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 5:33 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
So you're not going to address that this is a management plain problem.
Hi Mike,
What is there to address? I already said that NAT's security
enhancement comes into play when a -mistake- is made with the network
configuration. You want me to say it again? Okay, I've said it again.
The implication being that we should keep NAT'ing ipv6 for... a thin
veil of security. That all of the other things that NAT breaks is worth
the trouble because we can't trust our fat fingers on firewall configs.
Mike
