Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

To: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood at eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:51:22 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: Charles Adams <CAdams at USPIPE.com>, "IETF Discussion (E-mail)" <ietf at ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <200111281720.fASHKtT05480@astro.cs.utk.edu>
Organization: speaking for none
Reply-to: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood at eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Keith Moore wrote:

> > If access to the resource is blocked using NAT, then isn't that aspect
> > of security inherent to NAT?
>
> two things:
>
> 1. NAT blocks all external access even though you typically want to allow
> some kinds of external access.

Please read RFC2663, section 4, paying particular attention to 4.2 and
4.3.

L.

<L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

References:
- Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
  - From: Keith Moore

Prev by Date: Re: trying to reconcile two threads
Next by Date: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
Previous by thread: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
Next by thread: RE: Why IPv6 is a must?
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.

Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

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