On 02/14/2011 12:11 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: > How is NAT ever beautiful for anyone? I don't claim there is no place > for NAT but it is not beautiful and let's not confuse NAT with security. > Turn off NAT and your stateful deny-default policy firewall still blocks > all the same packets just as well. > Security Now just had an episode discussing how NAT prevented companies from charging on a per-computer basis for users' internet access. This seems pretty good to me. I'd hate to have to pay for a separate connection for every one of my computers because each would require a new IP address. Routers made it an impossible problem for the ISPs. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 554 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20110214/207e3bea/attachment.pgp>