Why? It wouldn't be visible to the rest of the world, and would provide the protection asked for, albeit with a reduction in functionality. That would even hide the IPNet RFC1918 addresses currently visible to the world :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley(a)automagic.org] Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 14:51 To: Gordon Smith Cc: Juha Saarinen; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [jim(a)cyberjunkees.com: Re: FW: Worm probes]
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:23:29PM +1200, Gordon Smith wrote:
Of course, a far better way to go would be to NAT the DSL users on RFC 1918 addresses.
As long as "better" is compatible with "in direct violation of RFC1918" in your world.
Joe
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog