Hi Victor!

Jan 26 21:49 2019, Victor Sudakov wrote to Markus Reschke:

 VS> The security guidelines I have read don't specify "NAT must be used." 
 VS> They specify "RFC1918 addresses must be used in the internal 
 VS> network."

For IPv6 they could use ULA (RFC4193). ;)

 VS> A static NAT has limited usage and indeed does not provide much 
 VS> additional security. But the dynamic NAT and especially PAT provide a 
 VS> very important security feature no packet filter provides: they 
 VS> *hide* the *source* *addresses* of internal hosts thus effectively 
 VS> hiding the network structure from outsiders.

And some dumbass enables UPnP on the firewall/router. >:) If an organization 
thinks that it has to hide the internal IP addresses for security reasons it 
can use NAT or proxies. Anyway, they still need much more than that to secure 
their network.

 MR>> There's also NAT for IPv6.

 VS> Never heard of that, other than DNS64/NAT64 which are for a different 
 VS> purpose.

NAT66

ciao,
Markus

---