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

[Geoffrey]

Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 19:01, Chris Fowler <cfowler at outpostsentinel.com> wrote:
>> *>From our Network Administrator:
>> We're doing a NAT'd VLAN for Outpostsentinal.com, so their systems will need
>> to be set with the following IP range:
>> 10.1.1.2-17, with a gateway of 10.1.1.1.
>> Their public IPs are 65.254.217.210-225 in the same order (ie:
>> 65.254.217.210 goes to 10.1.1.2, 65.254.217.211 goes to 10.1.1.3, etc)*
> 
> Have you tried asking them for public IPs?    If they don't have any
> to offer, ask them if they will support (BGP) your own ARIN
> allocation.
> 
> 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???  I think not.  I would not suggest that NAT is 
any more secure then a public static IP.


-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  - Benjamin Franklin