North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: is this true or... ?
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 02:24, David Schwartz wrote: > The laws require an "intent to" "conceal" the "origin or > destination". NAT would not count, as the intent is to share a scarce > resource, not to conceal the origin or destination -- the origin is > only concealed to the extent necessary to accomplish the sharing. I disagree - I could point you to a bunch of companies who are running NAT _precisely_ to "conceal origin or destination". Not because they are short of address space (since a lot of them even do 1:1 NAT), but because they feel it adds to their security measures to obscure and conceal their internal addressing and topology. Don't forget all the self-appointed "security experts" out there with very varying degrees of clue. I would imagine that type of setup would be very hard to argue falls outside the text of this bill. /leg