[57147] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (McBurnett, Jim)
Sun Mar 30 10:37:10 2003
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500
From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett@msmgmt.com>
To: "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb@merit.edu>,
"Jack Bates" <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
=20
> > And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of=20
> > service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model=20
> and sell as it=20
> > wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal=20
> extra service.=20
> > This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that=20
> continue to=20
> > allow and support NAT.
NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the ignorant..
Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or Staples and get's a=20
Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds NAT, and walla, his computer =
is
no longer wide open to the world... Albeit not a stateful firewall,
it is much more effective than Norton or others, as it does not use the
resources of the system. If this is illegal, then the law truely is =
contradictoriy.
As I understand it, it says that a network operator has the right to =
protect
themselves. A network can be defined as 1 or more computers connected to =
1
or more other computers.....
> The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of=20
> NAT devices
> where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
HMMM - Cisco just bought Linksys-- This should prove interesting!!!!
> Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where=20
> prohibited
> necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the
> customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft"
> is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for
> breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something
> else to put someone in prison for such a breach.
See note above... NAT- A poor man's type of firewall.....
> I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits
> the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon,
> and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they
> do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple=20
> routable static
> IP addresses).
That is surprising.. IN SC I know charter does not say that..
As a Matter of fact, I have worked closely with several local
Charter Engineers. And they have really been exactly opposite...
> The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service
> providers that charge fees. It most definitely does not cover
> anyone running a network.
how do they define a network? If I have a computer at home and it talks
to other computers.. Then don't I operate a network?
Later,
Jim
