Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 27, 2004 04:26 AM
This is all about trying to stop anonymity on the internet. NAT is not perfect, but useful enough when people want to have a completely private and closed network.
People have also got to ask, like the article says, if peoples' networks and the internet is working, why the rush to IPv6? Why not be efficient and save on IP addresses where necessary? Certainly corporates just do not want to touch their network infrastructure if it is working. They also may not be able to.
Melinda Shore pointed that FTP clients, as originally written, would not work with NAT. Neither would video conference applications.
So what? This is straw clutching.
"Not only are we [losing] existing applications, there are untold new things that are not making it to market. These new applications are unable to generate the critical mass they need to make any marketing noise because the NAT rich environment is too difficult for Joe Sixpack to deal with," Tony Hain wrote earlier this month.
Rubbish. What are all these new amazing applications this idiot is talking about?
"Basically, once you've committed to rewriting the forwarding information in an IP datagram, then it's open season on all manner of horrible opportunities for intermediaries to engage in Internet abuse," wrote James Woodyatt.
Err, that's the whole point of TCP/IP dumbass. What are you going to do. Use encrypted hardware to stop people from monitoring and changing their packets? F*****f! Personally, I find any suggestion that this is a security problem to be irresponsible because what goes around comes around. I will decide what comes in and leaves my network - no one else.
"The end machines are simply too vulnerable. Without firewall and service restriction, you'll have your entire network compromised very quickly," wrote Eric Rescorl.
Exactly. You should use NAT with a properly configured firewall to keep private networks private. It is a faff, but it can be done. I don't want there to be open season with a direct line from everywhere on the internet into my private network. Direct marketing to each device? There is not a chance in hell I want that to happen. Have people not learned from a little operating system called Windows?
We've got a lot of people trying to come up with ways to bad mouth NAT because they want to try to end anonymity for systems and networks that may be legitimately private. Their arguments are very, very weak.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Anonymity
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 27, 2004 04:26 AMPeople have also got to ask, like the article says, if peoples' networks and the internet is working, why the rush to IPv6? Why not be efficient and save on IP addresses where necessary? Certainly corporates just do not want to touch their network infrastructure if it is working. They also may not be able to.
Melinda Shore pointed that FTP clients, as originally written, would not work with NAT. Neither would video conference applications.
So what? This is straw clutching.
"Not only are we [losing] existing applications, there are untold new things that are not making it to market. These new applications are unable to generate the critical mass they need to make any marketing noise because the NAT rich environment is too difficult for Joe Sixpack to deal with," Tony Hain wrote earlier this month.
Rubbish. What are all these new amazing applications this idiot is talking about?
"Basically, once you've committed to rewriting the forwarding information in an IP datagram, then it's open season on all manner of horrible opportunities for intermediaries to engage in Internet abuse," wrote James Woodyatt.
Err, that's the whole point of TCP/IP dumbass. What are you going to do. Use encrypted hardware to stop people from monitoring and changing their packets? F*****f! Personally, I find any suggestion that this is a security problem to be irresponsible because what goes around comes around. I will decide what comes in and leaves my network - no one else.
"The end machines are simply too vulnerable. Without firewall and service restriction, you'll have your entire network compromised very quickly," wrote Eric Rescorl.
Exactly. You should use NAT with a properly configured firewall to keep private networks private. It is a faff, but it can be done. I don't want there to be open season with a direct line from everywhere on the internet into my private network. Direct marketing to each device? There is not a chance in hell I want that to happen. Have people not learned from a little operating system called Windows?
We've got a lot of people trying to come up with ways to bad mouth NAT because they want to try to end anonymity for systems and networks that may be legitimately private. Their arguments are very, very weak.
#