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 ...)

  • From: Adam McKenna
  • Date: Fri Sep 07 19:57:11 2001

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 McKenna <[email protected]>   | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA |      38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A