Re: ISPs can easily decrease net abuse

From: Kenn Barry (barry_at_example.invalid)
Date: 12/08/03 

Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:16:11 +0000 (UTC)

In article <MPG.1a3d1164d5861d6e989ef3@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <barmar-E4C9A8.02391207122003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>barmar@alum.mit.edu says...
>> In article <MPG.1a3c284355184f8c989eec@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
>> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually it's good we got back to this point. Home users, which is what
>> > we were talking about, would be better served by NAT/PAT from their ISP
>> > (or any other form).
>> >
>> > Under most (everyone I've read) TOS/AUP from the home users ISP, users
>> > are NOT permitted to allow their machines to act as servers or file
>> > sharing system and do not permit peer-to-peer external networks . This
>> > means that users must move files between other external user by email,
>> > ftp, or vpn (or sever other methods), none of which is bothered by
>> > NAT/PAT.
>>
>> Do you actually think this is a good thing?
>
>Yes, I do. Since 90% of the cable/dsl users are not providing content,
>and since they have no clue as to what their systems are
>running/serving, it makes it a very good thing.

        Can't help asking: what about the other 10%?

>> When cable modem ISPs started adding these policies to their TOSes, many
>> of the customers were incensed. One of the benefits seen of having a
>
>It's not when - most ALREADY have it in the TOS.

        I've heard this statement made often (not just by you),
and it always makes me wonder. My impression is that DHCP and "no
servers" AUPs are the rule on cable systems, but DSL systems are
more varied. In particular, current rules mean that the ISP of a
DSL user may be a small-to-medium outfit, allowing more flexible
policies, while cable providers are inevitably big cablecos.

        I'm on my 3rd DSL provider. All three provided me a static
IP#. With the current provider I have full support for forward
and reverse DNS for my vanity domain. My first two providers had
no policy against servers; my current one does, but it's a very
small, flexible ISP, and all it took was a very brief
conversation with them when I was signing up, to get explicit
permission for my mail server and sometime use of an ssh server.
His real concern was bandwidth, not servers.

        I'm not even sure what "commercial" and "residential"
accounts really mean. They seem to be marketing terms used by
large ISPs, for their own ends. My first DSL account, from a
large provider, was definitely residential - it was their
cheapest service. I still got a static IP# and permission to run
servers.

        My current account is a bit more expensive than typical
"residential" accounts, much cheaper than typical "commercial"
accounts. Which is it? You can't define such things with
market-speak.

>Nothing about NAT keeps you from participating - it only keeps you from
>being a provider, which should require a higher understanding of your
>systems before they go online anyway.

        Well, I like NAT, for my purposes. It puts this whole
home network online with just one IP#, and gives a bit of
security. So I guess we're pretty much on the same side.

>> Adding an ISP-enforced NAT just makes things even worse.
>
>It actually makes thing better for EVERYONE - there will be less hacked
>machines on the net, less people with problems, and that will increase
>performance and the richness of the internet experience for ALL of us.

        I think the real issue is who is in charge. NAT or not, I
intend to be in charge of my system, and I'm happy to take
responsibility for that. You've suggested ISP control of NAT
should be easy to turn off with one phone call. Might I suggest
something even simpler? Provider gives customer a cable/DSL modem
with built-in NAT that, by default, is in basic outbound-only
mode, but provides complete instructions (and permissions) to
customers to alter the setup, use port forwarding, DMZ, turn NAT
off, whatever. Since the big problem with trojaned machines and
such is clueless users, who tend to leave everything in default
setup, that should solve the problem you intend to solve, without
putting more power in the hands of centralized authorities.

                                                Kayembee

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can "Mail" quickly switch between ISPs?
    ... Tom Stiller wrote: ... Configure _two_ different accounts in Mail; one using the servers ... provided by ISP 1 and one using those provided by ISP 2. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.comm)
  • Re: Email Quagmire
    ... I put in the Comcast DNS servers. ... are allocated to home broadband or dial-up accounts. ... via your ISP because hopefully their servers aren't blacklisted. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Mysterious Mail Server problems!
    ... Today, for some unkown reason, we could not retreive any emails from two ... Other mail accounts we have ... Previously, we have had no problems, and the ISP has assured us there are ... Express for all mail accounts on regular pop3 ISP servers. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: Internettrains.com - worst customer service?
    ... it is capable of downloading email from multiple ISPs and ... nearly double that number of accounts, ... As for Usenet, as my current ISP does not have its own news servers, I only ...
    (rec.models.railroad)
  • Re: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down
    ... Scarlet Parsnip's ISP provider. ... Despite all of the recent TRASH POSTS...which Google apparently enjoys ... All Google can do to control them is to shut down accounts used ...
    (rec.music.movies)