[ale] OT move to new Colo that wants to use NAT

[Jim Popovitch]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:28, Geoffrey <lists at serioustechnology.com> wrote:
>> IMHO, their move to do this is both good and bad.  Good because it
>> protects the idiots who lease systems they don't know how to secure,
>> bad because it removes capabilities that quality technical folks need.
>
> Security by obscurity???

No.  There is nothing obscure about using NAT.

> I think not.  I would not suggest that NAT is
> any more secure then a public static IP.

I would say you are wrong then. ;-)   It all depends on how NAT is
configured... but to broadly paint NAT as no more secure than non-NAT
is just plain wrong.   With that thinking all networking is wrong
because the possibility exists for all networking components to be
mis-configured or setup insecurely.

-Jim P.