v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Mark Andrews Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mon Feb 9 21:16:10 CST 2009


In message <[email protected]>, "TJ" writes:
> >> >	The SOX auditor ought to know better.  Any auditor that
> >> >	requires NAT is incompenent.
> >>
> >> Sadly, there are many audit REQUIREMENTS explicitly naming NAT and
> >> RFC1918 addressing ...
> >
> >SOX auditors are incompetent. I've been asked about anti-virus software on
> >UNIX servers and then asked to prove that they run UNIX.........
> 
> Fair enough, but my point was that it isn't the auditors' faults in _all_
> cases.
> When the compliance explicitly requires something they are required to check
> for it, they don't have the option of ignoring or waving requirements ...
> and off the top of my head I don't recall if it is SOX that calls for
> RFC1918 explicitly but I know there are some that do.

	Please cite references.

	I can find plenty of firewall required references but I'm
	yet to find a NAT and/or RFC 1918 required.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org




More information about the NANOG mailing list