Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

I disagree with your statement on NAT end-points not being "publicly accessible" -- that's certainly not true, and a myth that needs to be finally killed. The "statefulness" of the NAT gateway handles that -- it's a non-issue. I get really tired of hearing people perpetuate this mistruth. Of course, my comment on this has nothing to do with whatever the original thread was... - ferg -- Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: [snip] So I put all my customers behind a NAT device (or just a stateful packet filter). They are no longer publicly accessible, and hence not subject to the provisions of this section. Fixing that would probably require companies to open up their corporate networks, which is a non-starter. (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.) -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

* Fergie:
I disagree with your statement on NAT end-points not being "publicly accessible" -- that's certainly not true, and a myth that needs to be finally killed.
From a security point of view, they are still accessible. From an operational point of view, they are not, at least not on the original IP layer, and if you aren't using 1:1 NAT.
Nevertheless, I think that the "publicly accessible" criterion is flawed because it is too murky. But something similar is necessary to implement the corporate networks exception.
participants (2)
-
Fergie
-
Florian Weimer