Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue
From: Barry Margolin (barmar_at_alum.mit.edu)
Date: 10/11/04
- Previous message: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- In reply to: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- Next in thread: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- Reply: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:11:21 -0400
In article <1ACad.443$gy1.68@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
xmp <xmp@example.com> wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > As I've said many times before, if the "Default" was NAT, and you could
> > get "Public" just by asking, it would solve a LOT of problems. So, you
> > could still have your unfiltered traffic if you know enough to ask for
> > it, but for the lemmings out there, we would all be better off as would
> > they.
> >
>
> Wouldn't this mess up even simple applications like (active) FTP and AIM
> DC transfers? The router or firewall would have to be smart enough to
> be application aware. I'm assuming you are saying it's an ISP owned
> router somewhere, rather than a consumer router in the residence.
Of course the NAT would have to be smart, just like the NAT on most
broadband routers and firewalls is.
-- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
- Previous message: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- In reply to: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- Next in thread: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- Reply: xmp: "Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|