[TriLUG] Adding to the list of topics: IPv6

[Brian Weaver]

I prefer to look at NAT as not delegating an entire set of machine as 
second class citizens. Instead I tend to think of the machines behind 
NAT/Firewall as children not yet battle hardened enough to handle the 
real world. A prime example is my wife's Windows box. It just isn't 
ready for all the bullies on the net. Anti-Virus software is like using 
tissue paper for a bullet proof vest. If the bullets a dud you are all 
right, if not then pray for a poor marksman.

NAT is no excuse for poor internal security, but it does allow a certian 
amount of flexibity and breathing room on internal systems. Think of it 
as a gated community. Only a truely skilled and determined thug can get 
in to bang on your door (unless you've left the gate open of course).

-Weave


Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> Mike Johnson wrote:
> 
>>
>> So?  There are not ~ 4.3 billion 'servers'.  Never will be.  From my
>> workstation, I don't need to have a direct conversation with your
>> workstation.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  For reference, note that SpeakFreely is being
> withdrawn, mainly because of problems dealing with boxes that
> are only connected through NAT.  NAT, for all the good things it
> gives, does delegate an entire set of machines as 2nd class net
> citizens.  So, you have to look at the tradeoffs in the current
> system and decide what you want, but just saying that NAT is unqualifiably
> good is not the way to go.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tanner
>