🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1a36cd3d8712184d989eb5@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
Leythos  <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
:I think that your above description of a quality router/NAT device is 
:specifically what I was suggesting. I'm not sure why anyone would want 
:to use a NAT device that didn't ensure the returned packets were from 
:the correct location.

Because A) it's cheaper; and B) they don't know any better.


:So, we're back to what I said before - if ISP's were to use NAT (not 
:some unsecure version of NAT) we would all be a lot better off and 
:customers would be must less at risk. In most cases this would not cost 
:the ISP's anything as I would imagine that their basic hardware would 
:already be capable of implementing this.

The newer generations of SOHO devices do often support the necessary
logic, but those still cost noticably more than the less-protected
versions... and there is a lot of older generation equipment out there.

For example, the Cisco 837 has the necessary "firewall feature set"
built in (at about $US475 street), but it was an (commonly bundled)
option for the 827H and 827-4V, and a very expensive option for the 801
& 803.  And all of those devices are packed with features that very few
home users need. Meanwhile, devices like the Netgear MR314 are down
around the $US50 range but don't protect as well as the Cisco 837.  I'm
using the older generation Netgear RT314 myself, which does a good
enough job of NAT for -my- needs...  but I'm also not running PCs.

-- 
Warning: potentially contains traces of nuts.