|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 07:50:05PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote: > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Leo Bicknell esoterically agitated: > > > It does have some interesting implication as to who can modify data > > as well. If a device in the middle has license to modify data in > > the middle of a data stream, what are the limits of that license? > > If my service provider uses NAT without my consent can I sue them > > for reading/changing my data? If not, why would I be able to sue > > them if they do the same thing to e-mail? What is the difference? > > You can sue whoever you want, for whatever you want, whenever you want. > > Can you show damages in the situation of email? Yes. With packets? No. And > before you come back at me with some crazy convoluted contrived scenario, > let's just realize how far off the beaten path we are at this point. If > your ISP is going to force you to use NAT, "against your will", get a new > fricking provider. For that matter, what ISP NATs you against your will? I've been waiting for an answer to this since the thread started -- but then I realized that the NAT argument is just a smokescreen which enables Meyer to continue his prefix filtering flamewar. The sooner you all stop paying attention to him, the better off this list will be. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[email protected]> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
|