On 12/16/2014 04:32 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:25:31PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
NAT IS a means of security. (Your reason for saying it should not be so considered is totally non germane). NAT and firewalls are, for most implementations, one and the same. Please explain what security NAT provides beyond what's capable with a
On 12/16/2014 02:32 PM, John Andersen wrote: properly configured firewall. NAT is only used due to the lack of addresses.
oh boy, it is time to put you in /dev/null
No, as John has demonstrated, a lot of people don't understand the difference between NAT and firewall functions. The purpose of a firewall is to filter traffic so that only the desired traffic gets through. In many cases that means block everything. The main purpose of NAT is to share addresses, but in the process provides a firewall function, as a side effect, in that there's no way past it to devices behind, unless specifically configured. That said, from the viewpoint of filtering traffic, NAT provides no benefit that a properly configured firewall doesn't. A lot of people are confused on this because they've only been exposed to the consumer grade devices from D-Link, Linksys etc., which are toys compared to commercial grade equipment from Cisco, Adtran, Juniper and others. Even a computer running Linux can do a lot more than those consumer level devices. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org