v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
marquis at roble.com
Wed Feb 4 22:39:08 CST 2009
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they think
> if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a firewall.
NAT provides some security, often enough to make a firewall unnecessary.
It all depends on what's inside the edge device. But really, I've never
heard anyone seriously equate a simple NAT device with a firewall.
People do, and justifiably, equate NAT with the freedom to number, subnet,
and route their internal networks however they choose. To argue against
that freedom is anti-consumer. Continue to ignore consumer demand and the
marketplace will continue to respond accordingly.
Give consumers a choice (of NAT or not) and they will come (to IPv6). It's
just about as simple as that. Well, that and a few unresolved issues with
CAMs, routing tables, and such.
More information about the NANOG