On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 14:49 -0700, John Andersen wrote:
On 9/8/2010 2:44 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 14:25 -0700, John Andersen wrote:
On 9/8/2010 2:03 PM, James Knott wrote:
It's time for you to find a new ISP. NAT is broken in a number of ways. For example, it breaks some protocols and makes it impossible for a user to reach their network from elsewhere. Also, it's possible for an ISP to overload NAT, as each IP address has a limited number of ports that can be remapped. Well, in some ways, making it harder to reach your own net is not totally a bad idea. What you can reach, others can reach, and with a nat-less internet you end up requiring protection in every device. Golly - NAT IS NOT A SECURITY MEASURE! How many times does that have to be said to sink in? It doesn't matter, it still does pretty well as such. Exactly. NAT IS a router.
*FALSE*
You pretty much can't have nat without a router.
Correct, NAT is meaningless without a router. That doesn't make NAT a router.
And a router is a pretty good form of a firewall.
Seriously?
A far simpler firewall than would be required if you had to protect a couple dozen IPs in the typical home in a flat internet that ipv6 is capable of providing.
Easy. I set the firewall to block-all-incoming-connections. Done. Even simpler than NAT. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org