the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Jon Lewis
jlewis at lewis.org
Tue Apr 27 21:25:18 UTC 2010
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> That site will manage to chucklehead their config whether or not it's NAT'ed.
True...but when they do it and all their important stuff is in
192.168.0/24, you still can't reach it...and if they break NAT, at least
their internet breaks. i.e. they'll know its broken. When they change
the default policy on the firewall to Accept/Allow all, everything will
still work...until all their machines are infected with enough stuff to
break them.
> Hmm... Linux has a firewall. MacOS has a firewall. Windows XP SP2 or later
> has a perfectly functional firewall out of the box, and earlier Windows had
> a firewall but it didn't do 'default deny inbound' out of the box.
Linux can have a firewall. Not all distros default to having any rules.
XP can (if you want to call it that). I don't have any experience with
MacOS. Both my kids run Win2k (to support old software that doesn't run
well/at all post-2k). I doubt that's all that unusual.
> Are you *really* trying to suggest that a PC is not fit-for-purpose
> for that usage, and *requires* a NAT and other hand-holding?
Here's an exercise. Wipe a PC. Put it on that cable modem with no
firewall. Install XP on it. See if you can get any service packs
installed before the box is infected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | I route
Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
More information about the NANOG
mailing list