[41401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam McKenna)
Fri Sep 7 19:55:34 2001
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:49:26 -0700
From: Adam McKenna <adam-nanog@flounder.net>
To: "NANOG (E-mail)" <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20010907164926.C24340@flounder.net>
Mail-Followup-To: "NANOG (E-mail)" <nanog@merit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0109071930400.2624-100000@shell.xecu.net>
Mail-Copies-To: never
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 07:50:05PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Leo Bicknell esoterically agitated:
>
> > It does have some interesting implication as to who can modify data
> > as well. If a device in the middle has license to modify data in
> > the middle of a data stream, what are the limits of that license?
> > If my service provider uses NAT without my consent can I sue them
> > for reading/changing my data? If not, why would I be able to sue
> > them if they do the same thing to e-mail? What is the difference?
>
> You can sue whoever you want, for whatever you want, whenever you want.
>
> Can you show damages in the situation of email? Yes. With packets? No. And
> before you come back at me with some crazy convoluted contrived scenario,
> let's just realize how far off the beaten path we are at this point. If
> your ISP is going to force you to use NAT, "against your will", get a new
> fricking provider. For that matter, what ISP NATs you against your will?
I've been waiting for an answer to this since the thread started -- but then
I realized that the NAT argument is just a smokescreen which enables Meyer to
continue his prefix filtering flamewar. The sooner you all stop paying
attention to him, the better off this list will be.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
