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.
-----Original Message----- From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 12:28 To: 'Gordon Smith' Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [jim(a)cyberjunkees.com: Re: FW: Worm probes]
:: Of course, a far better way to go would be to NAT the DSL :: users on RFC 1918 :: addresses.
Ah, but would ISPs give DSL users any control over the NAT'ing? And wouldn't it make the service far less valuable to DSL users?
I wouldn't be prepared to pay what I do now for a "neutered" DSL service that wouldn't let me run the odd service.
-- Juha
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog