Hi Victor!   
      
   Jan 26 21:49 2019, Victor Sudakov wrote to Markus Reschke:   
      
    VS> The security guidelines I have read don't specify "NAT must be used."    
    VS> They specify "RFC1918 addresses must be used in the internal    
    VS> network."   
      
   For IPv6 they could use ULA (RFC4193). ;)   
      
    VS> A static NAT has limited usage and indeed does not provide much    
    VS> additional security. But the dynamic NAT and especially PAT provide a    
    VS> very important security feature no packet filter provides: they    
    VS> *hide* the *source* *addresses* of internal hosts thus effectively    
    VS> hiding the network structure from outsiders.   
      
   And some dumbass enables UPnP on the firewall/router. >:) If an organization   
   thinks that it has to hide the internal IP addresses for security reasons it   
   can use NAT or proxies. Anyway, they still need much more than that to secure   
   their network.   
      
    MR>> There's also NAT for IPv6.   
      
    VS> Never heard of that, other than DNS64/NAT64 which are for a different    
    VS> purpose.   
      
   NAT66   
      
   ciao,   
   Markus   
      
   ---    
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)