[resending to right address]
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 13:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dead Thread (Re: Security gain from NAT)
Was this message sent because one or more
On 5-jun-2007, at 4:29, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Don't forget that the reason NAT works to the degree that it does
today is because of all the workarounds in applications or protocol-
specific workarounds in the NATs (ALGs). In IPv6, you don't have any
of this stuff, so IPv6 NAT gets you nowhere
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 5/06/2007, at 9:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posit that a screen door does not provide any security.
Any is too strong a word. For people living in an area with
malaria-carrying mosquitoes, that screen door may be more important for
On 7/06/2007, at 3:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Roger Marquis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I, for one, give up. No matter what you say I will never
implement NAT, and you may or may not implement it if people
make boxes that support it.
Most of the rest of us will continue to listen to both
4 matches
Mail list logo
