Re: Microsoft Worm
From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 08/17/03
- Previous message: Frode: "Re: Microsoft Worm"
- In reply to: Frode: "Re: Microsoft Worm"
- Next in thread: Dean Palladino: "Re: Microsoft Worm"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:44:11 GMT
In article <3f3f83d2$1@news.broadpark.no>,
news@mascot.REMOVETOREPLY.dyndns.org says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> mto wrote:
> > <SNIP> ISP's should be responsible for installing a NAT router at the
> >> least for every customer - for business accounts they should require
> >> a firewall.
> > You're forgetting the cost factor here. The public wants CHEAP net
> > access. Adding NAT for every user would significantly raise the cost to
> > the ISP and lead to endless tech support problems from the huge number of
> > customers that cannot configure their own dial-up. End-user price would
> > have to be raised accordingly, leading to a mass exodus to cheaper ISPs.
> > This idea might be good security but it is BAD business.
>
> One of the most successful ADSL providers in my country (Norway) bases its
> service on the premise that each user gets sent a netopia nat
> router/firewall to plug into the wall at home. There's no option to hook up
> without it. It's also significantly cheaper than its only major competitor
> that only offers a pppoe solution directly exposing the connected computer.
>
> Any user "advanced" enough to really need to run servers inside their NAT
> can configure forwarding rules via a webpage hosted by the ISP.
>
> I'm not terribly experienced in the adsl technology, but I have the
> distinct impression you need some hardware at home either way. Based on the
> above it doesn't seem the added cost of having at least NAT in that box is
> prohibitive compared to a bare-bones version.
Frode,
Glad to see you post about it. In my experience the Cable Modem and DSL
Modem's already have the ability to provide NAT in most cases. The
addition of adding a Linksys NAT router to those that doesn't offer NAT
would cost less than $25 for providers that purchase in bulk.
I can see where he was coming from though - having to provide support to
clients that want to do things that NAT causes problems with would
increase your overhead expenses, but at the same time, I think that
having less compromised machines on the network would also decrease the
support overhead.
With ADSL or SDSL and with Cable you need to have a modem at the home,
if the ISP spent the extra $ to purchase a modem with NAT built in I bet
it would not impact their bottom line at all.
I like the web interface for changing the forwarding rules idea - I
think that it would be a good solution to most of the issues against NAT
devices.
Mark
-- -- spamfree999@rrohio.com (Remove 999 to reply to me)
- Previous message: Frode: "Re: Microsoft Worm"
- In reply to: Frode: "Re: Microsoft Worm"
- Next in thread: Dean Palladino: "Re: Microsoft Worm"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
