🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1a3803d0ae13b187989ebe@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
Leythos  <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
:This is well and good, but I was really looking at this as though the 
:Cable/DSL companies would enable this option in their modems so that the 
:customer didn't have any control of the device. They could still add a 
:cheap router to share the single connection, but if the ISP, which is 
:buying a better class of a device, did this in their modems I would 
:imagine it would help the vast majority of people.

As best I can tell from what I have seen in messages flying by, most of
the cable/DSL CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) that has been installed
in North America, does not support the more secure forms of NAT. The
equipment was a -lot- more expensive when the companies decided upon
equipment years ago. The newer faster "Business Class" DSL would be more
likely to have it, I would think. Also, the higher end equipment seems to
be more common in Europe.


:Even if they were to use one of the lesser secure versions of NAT it 
:would still protect a large number of users.

For the technical reasons I went into before, it might slow down
viruses/worms, but not by nearly as much as one might hope. Who was
it that said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes
around it." ?


:This was never about the end user purchasing the device, it was about 
:the ISP's providing the functionality already built into their hardware.

Sadly, the installed equipment often doesn't have the better NAT
functionality.

Turning it on where it is present would be a start though, and
eventually old equipment will get upgraded...
-- 
'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"'
   -- Journal of Self-Referentialism