-=> On 01-26-19 21:18, Victor Sudakov wrote to Tony Langdon <=-   
      
    VS> It was not intended as a security mechanism initially, but over time,   
    VS> it became one, and is required by many security guidelines. Ask some   
    VS> computer security specialist you trust, if you don't believe me.   
      
   Well, having compared notes, I am wary of anyone who calls themselves a   
   "specialist" without personal knowledge and trust of the person. :)  I've   
   certainly heard a lot of dodgy stories about so-called "specialists" in   
   networking from a very trusted source over the years.   
      
    VS> Of course it does more! No packet filter *hides* *src* *addresses* of   
    VS> your internal hosts, and that is exactly what security people love NAT   
    VS> for.   
      
   True, but IPv6 has mechanisms for source IP privacy without NAT.   
      
    VS> Sorry you are mistaken. Very few attacks nowdays are based on injecting   
    VS> malicious traffic into your network, those times are long gone.   
    VS> Information gathering about your intranet could be much more important   
    VS> than the ability to send traffic into it from outside.   
      
   That is a good point.   
      
    TL> NAT still creates a lot of problems, ask anyone who'd wrestled with   
    TL> port forwarding, to try and get services opened to the Internet.   
      
    VS> That's a different story, I myself have wrestled enough with IPv4 NAT.   
    VS> So I would be happy to advocate NAT-less IPv6 to anyone, but I need   
    VS> arguments. Have not heard anything new so far.   
      
   Yeah so have I and it's a pain in the proverbial.   
      
      
   ... Sir, the Romulans do not take prisoners!   
   === MultiMail/Win v0.51   
   --- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux   
    * Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)