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

Matthew Palmer mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Tue Feb 10 07:03:40 UTC 2009

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:27:59PM -0500, TJ wrote:
> >> >	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.

Considering that RFC1918 says nothing about IPv at all, could that be a
blocker for deployment in general?  That'd also make for an interesting
discussion re: other legacy protocols (IPX, anyone?)...

- Matt

I tend to think of "solution" as just a pretentious term for "thingy". 
Doing that word substitution in my head makes IT marketing literature
somewhat more tolerable.
		-- lutchann, in http://lwn.net/Articles/124703/

More information about the NANOG mailing list