mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)

Thu Jul 7 19:51:17 UTC 2005

Andre Oppermann wrote:
> 
> Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>  >
> 
>> I'd have to counter with "the assumption that NATs are going
>> away with v6 is a rather risky assumption." Or perhaps I
>> misunderstood your point...
> 
> 
> There is one thing often overlooked with regard to NAT.  That is,
> it has prevented many network based worms for millions of home
> users behind NAT devices.  Unfortunatly this fact is overlooked
> all the time.  NAT has its downsides but also upsides sometimes.

And the counter point to that argument is that the sparse population
of IPv6 space will make systematic scanning by worms an ineffective
means of propagation.
-- 
Crist J. Clark                               crist.clark at globalstar.com
Globalstar Communications                                (408) 933-4387