Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

[chuckchurch at gmail.com (Chuck Church)]

I disagree.  I see it as an extra layer of security.  If DOD had a network
with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside.  It
never interacts with public network.  Having it duplicated on the outside
world adds an extra layer of complexity to a hacker trying to access it.
It's not a be-all/end-all, but it's a plus.  A hacker who's partially in the
network may try to access network 'X', but it routes to the outside world,
tripping IDSs...

Chuck


-----Original Message-----
From: TJ [mailto:trejrco at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:36 PM
To: Andrey Khomyakov
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out there ...*

/TJ


On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov <
khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com> wrote:

> So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's 
> unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official 
> reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out
there?
>
> --Andrey
>