----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> > The point I'm trying to get across to you is that your security does > NOT come from NAT. It comes from the stateful inspection mechanism and > the policies you set within that stateful inspection mechanism. The > unfortunate problem is that an entire generation of engineers has > grown up not knowing the difference between stateful inspection and > NAT because hardly any products contained stateful inspection without > NAT and stateful inspection with address translation is a mouthful > and NAT is a syllable.
The point you *appear* to be trying to make is that *NO* security comes from NAT, and that is not a defensible argument. If that's not what you mean to say, you might want to reexamine your phrasing. :-) Cheers, -- jra
