Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:51:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Emerson <paul@gta.com> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipv6 network addresses Message-ID: <199806012000.QAA14487@gta.gta.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <13679.44784.627668.295652@silver.sms.fi> you wrote: : Matthew N. Dodd writes: : > On Fri, 29 May 1998, Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh wrote: : > > I believe people would like to get rid of NAT when v6 is deployed, : > > so there will be no private address, I believe... : > : > For the most part your belief would be correct however in a small number : > of cases I find NAT to be highly useful. : > : > I have a number of machines running at home which are not secured and : > should not be reachable via global addresses. In addition, I keep my : > Win95/NT/Netware boxes behind the NAT on general principle. : Repeat after me: NAT is not reason for not having : security. Additionally it breaks your IP telephone and other : bi-directional peer-to-peer applications. : Pete Repeat after me: All NAT solutions are not created equal. You can make an Internet telephone call through NAT/firewall our product. CU-SeeMe, RealAudio, and the list goes on. Transparent NAT is not a simple proposition but it can be done. -- Paul Emerson (paul@gta.com) Global Technology Associates, Inc. Tel. 407-380-0220 Fax. 407-380-6080 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806012000.QAA14487>