Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Charles Sprickman <spork () inch com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:51:33 -0400 (EDT)


On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|> True...  neither does a well-firewalled LAN.

There is a substantial difference between broken access and controlled
access.

Yes, but there are plenty of apps that will not work if you do not leave
open large, arbitrary ranges of udp ports.  This is fundamentally
incompatible with most sane firewalls.  Or NAT.

Why write a protocol that way?  Just to prove NAT sucks?

Charles



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]