At 12:36 PM 20/09/01 +1200, Gordon Smith wrote:
hehe. You want it both ways... If NAT was used, DoS attacks, etc, wouldn't affect you, since an RFC1918 destination won't be routed.
But how many really *NEED* to run real world services. For the majority of DSL users, NAT would be OK, and there wouldn't be any billing surprises because of things like DoS attacks.
This is a good example of the "internet is just web browsing and email" mentality. (And no, I'm not picking on you in particular, you just happened to bring it up just now) There are plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to avoid going through NAT, or at the very least avoid going through NAT which is done outside your control (eg upstream at the ISP) other than just wanting to run "services". What about games ? I suppose the "majority" of DSL users don't need or want to be able to play online games without hassles with NAT. (I'm thinking in particular the Microsoft direct play type games which seem to be very NAT unfriendly) Some games can be made to work with pinholes, but often to only one machine at a time, and _only_ if you have access to the NAT device to administer those pinholes...I would wager a good proportion of the early adopters of residential Jetstream were game freaks, who certainly wouldn't buy your argument. Remember, Jetstream users (particularly home users) are typically not your average joe-schmoe internet user, they're often power users who are prepared to pay a lot more money for a faster connection, and are likely to do things more "exotic" than Web browsing and Email. How about instant messenging software like Microsoft Messenger and ICQ ? Seems like pretty commonly used software to me. Anyone reading this list will know that file transfers through NAT with Microsoft messenger are more or less impossible at this point. ICQ is a bit more flexible, with pinholes and a bit of configuration it is possible to get file transfers working, but again only if you have control of the NAT device, and the file transfers wont work (reliably) without the pinholing and configuration. How about Audio/Visual chat programs like Microsoft Netmeeting ? I wonder how many people who had tried programs like that on a modem and decided they would be much better over a broadband connection, only to discover they wouldn't work at all through a NAT device like their shiny new M1122 ? Yes, the H323 protocol is horrific and nearly impossible to NAT, but thats not the point. Peer to peer file sharing ? Of course nobody with a fast connection would ever want to use *that*. ;-) I could go on, but I think you get the point. Never _assume_ what people want to do with their internet connection, and place arbitrary restrictions on whats technically possible thinking "oh, they'll never need to be able to do *that*". Already, Jetst* connections through an external NAT device are functionally restricted compared to a dialup connection, lets not make it any worse by doing the NAT at the ISP....:) Regards, Simon --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog