Re: To address or NAT to address?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: jaltman at columbia.edu
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: "David R. Conrad" <David_Conrad at isc.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:59:21 -0800
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK at Dial.pipex.com>, Daniel Senie <dts at senie.com>, ietf at ietf.org
Organization: Internet Software Consortium
References: <CMM.0.90.4.943992999.jaltman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>

> DNS is not secure 

True for now.  Of course, this is something DNSSEC is supposed to address.

> Authentication information is frequently encrypted 

Not in the case of DNSSEC.

Rgds,
-drc

References:
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Jeffrey Altman

Prev by Date: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)
Next by Date: [no subject]
Previous by thread: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Next by thread: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.