On 6/12/10 4:34 PM, "John R Pierce" <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > On 12/06/10 4:27 PM, Brian Mathis wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Bob McConnell<rmcconne at lightlink.com> wrote: >>> No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the world. >>> I consider that a serious security flaw. ... >> What you are talking about is a FIREWALL, which is NOT THE SAME THING >> as a NAT router. ... > > Bob, much like my employer's 'E Security' people, seems to think that > the host addresses themselves are privileged proprietary secrets, and > exposing them increases the probability of being hacked. This has been discussed to death on the NANOG list, where various admins haven't taken the time necessary to unwarp their thinking based off bad security doctrines from the 90s. -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Office: (408) 240-1239