IPv6 NAT

Joe Abley jabley at isc.org
Fri Oct 31 16:58:28 UTC 2003



On 31 Oct 2003, at 11:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

>> There is NO security benefit to NAT/PAT/NAPT.
>
> Disagree.
>
> None of the scanning / infecting viruses could get past a $50 NAT/PAT 
> device which Joe User brings home and turns on without configuring.

It's not the NAT that those boxes are doing which protected Joe User 
(no relation). It's the firewall function of those boxes -- the 
function which stops certain traffic being permitted through the front 
door -- which stopped the viruses outside the front door infecting the 
windows box in the dining room.

The $50 NAT device performs the firewall function as well as the NAT 
function.

A $50 device which just provided the firewall function would protect 
Joe User just as well from viruses.

The NAT function is required because Joe User requires multiple 
addresses, but his ISP will only give him one. That's orthogonal to the 
firewall function.

Let's move on.


Joe




More information about the NANOG mailing list