[ppml] IPv6 flawed?
Behm, Jeffrey L.
BehmJL at bv.com
Thu Sep 13 14:42:26 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Next message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Another data point to consider: On Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:15 PM, Kevin Kargel said: >If I want a private section of it all I >have to do is set an access list for it in my edge routers denying >traffic for that subnet in or out of my network. Voila, I have a >private network. > Not a private network, just a public network that is firewalled...read on. >Then I have the added advantage that if I ever need temporary access to >the world for an internal box (let's say I want to update patches) all I >have to do is punch a temporary hole in the access list. No setting up >NAT, no renumbering, nothing fancy at all, it just instantly works. Similarly, if your admin *accidentally* (they're human, right?) punches a not-so-temporary hole to that so-called private network, then your private network isn't private anymore. If it was private, ala rfc1918, then it wouldn't be such a big deal as opening up a non-rfc1918 address (range?), which the rest of the Internet would then be able to access. Jeff
- Previous message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Next message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list