[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Roger Marquis <marquis at roble.com> wrote:
>> Why then I apologize, because I thought you meant to convey that NAT
>> should be *required* to become obsolete with IPv4, perhaps by
>> obstructing folks' choice to use it in IPv6. Surely Roger only meant
>> to offer his opinion that given a choice, few network security
>> professionals would choose to abandon the use NAT.
>
> It isn't just network security professionals who won't give up NAT,
> end-user consumers also won't.

Oh, I don't know about that. Consumers generally use what the ISP
provides. One persuasive argument against an ISP deploying customer
NAT is that a non-NAT firewall/router will induce fewer costly support
calls about how to configure bittorrent, warcraft, etc., while the
bulk of their security clean-up headache will come from spam-linked
trojans regardless.

Just don't expect that argument to sell with the enterprise customers.

-Bill


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004