North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
Indeed, I DO have a a linksys for just that reason, in fact its a 1 wan/1 lan version...'Course, its plugged into a switch, that has an airport attached as well but... I have been, and am constantly probed for just about everything under the, er, sun. Considering the amount of people out there who have less than a full allotment of clue for these types of things, the larger issue is the OS vendors should probably make an effort to not turn on every less-than-secure service out of the box on a default install. But thats probably off topic... Having some sort of firewall is a good start, though not a complete solution. The comcasts of the world are only going to hurt themselves more if they continue to make a huge stink out of this. (Yes, I know a fw!=NAT, but do you think the vendor will make that distinction?) toddler (ps yes, at times I think using a computer on the internet should require a license) On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, M. David Leonard wrote: > > > You know, if I had a cable modem I would have some sort of > firewall router just to preserve my peace of mind. I might even run NAT > on the LAN side. So the question is this: can a customer use a firewall > for *one* computer? If so, how can the cableco determine whether there > is a single computer or two computers or more behind a firewall? I > really don't think they can except in cases of egregious abuse. > > > David Leonard > ShaysNet > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > > > > > > "Eric A. Hall" wrote: > > > > > If you use too much bandwidth, they will  drop your service. > > > > ps--the original message sounds like they have gone beyond hunting down > > the people running warez servers and the like, and have gone into an > > agressive mode of pursuing anybody with a NAT regardless of their > > utilization. I have no idea if that is true. I don't think it would be a > > smart move on their part but that probably doesn't enter the equation. > > > > -- > > Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ > > Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ > > >