[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: quietly....
- From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:27:06 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> The point I'm trying to get across to you is that your security does
> NOT come from NAT. It comes from the stateful inspection mechanism and
> the policies you set within that stateful inspection mechanism. The
> unfortunate problem is that an entire generation of engineers has
> grown up not knowing the difference between stateful inspection and
> NAT because hardly any products contained stateful inspection without
> NAT and stateful inspection with address translation is a mouthful
> and NAT is a syllable.
The point you *appear* to be trying to make is that *NO* security comes
from NAT, and that is not a defensible argument.
If that's not what you mean to say, you might want to reexamine your