North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
- From: Matt Barrette
- Date: Thu Jan 31 17:46:38 2002
To add more fuel to the fire, how does one combat the issue of "stolen" IP
addresses. Stolen IP's are worse to me than a user doing NAT.
Slightly intuitive users could figure out that their IP is one of a /24 and
just statically assign one to their other machine with out paying for it,
and worse take somebodies IP and make that user non-functional. I know the
cable modem service where I live will allow this type of activity.
At 01:37 PM 1/31/2002 -0800, Keith Woodworth wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
>|+On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Marc Pierrat wrote:
>|+> It's not very enforceable, so I'd be very surprised to see much money
>|+> spent on this witch hunt.
>|+At least one provider has a fully staffed full time "anti-nat" divison
>|+now. But will they burn more cash in the nat witch-hunt than they save?
>|+I also wonder about false positives. Watch the lawsuits fly as they
>|+mistakenly cutoff non-nat customers.
>From a technical standpoint how does one detect NAT users over the