Re: EOL Statement

I think everyone here seems to have it wrong on just way NAT is used these 
days.  The ISP is forcing NAT on these customers its the customers 
themselves that are getting and using the NAT devices.  The reason why is 
this,  High-speed ISP account $40 to -$100 a month (us) that for 5 email 
addresses usually 1 dynamic ip and what ever speed  promised.  Without a 
NAT'ed connection extra ips are about $5 or so per month per IP With NAT 
extra connections are $0.  Also with getting IPs from the ISP (at least on 
most providers here in the us) they purposely don't give you consecutive 
addresses and if you run anything like Netbios services all information 
flows through the connecting device up do the first router and back down to 
your other computer, slow and quit dumb.

There are things that can be done to stop that but then again what a lot of 
the upper internet users don't realize is that more dead zombie "AOL Like" 
user are joining the internet and other various activities on the internet 
everyday.  These people want it all but don't want to know anything about it 
or even the basics of it.  If they can't plug and go then they don't want 
it.  Take a good hard look at those anti-dish commercials on tv (once again 
at least here in the US) these people botch their own installs or are given 
directions that the don't really follow and complain that its the dish 
companies fault for what they did.  A lot of NAT connections are popping up 
too because of game consoles that can use broadband for net gaming rather 
than pay 20 for the ability then another 5 for the ip.

To end my Nat rant I'd like to ask that anyone, ANYONE that have a problem 
with NAT get together and lets plan a RFC to solve these issues, I'm no 
network wizard but I can think of a few ways to make NAT less of a hassle.  
The first thing that comes to mind is with port forwarding, its not required 
to do this but would make NAT A lot better.  When you port forward (not sure 
if the packet or the frame has this issue, most likely the frame) is not 
obscured, that is since it was actually altered at the NAT box and sent with 
the inside connection, server will receive that information and think that 
the connection comes form the inside address rater than the original sender 
on the other side of the NAT.  If it was obscured and the original sending 
IP address was stamped on the forwarded packet and frame then the services 
would know the original sender of the forwarded packet and communication 
would be fine as out going communication seems to be alright.  There is a 
software way around this, the best example I have found is ceaserFTP 
(http://www.aclogic.com/). This program give you the ability for PSAV FTP 
connection to specify what IP address and what port range. So Example:   Out 
side user connects to my FTP server, although my server is internal and 
knows nothing about my public IP address during the regular FTP connection 
procedures it tell the connecting client that its ip address is not its 
internal but what I've told it is my external and also what range of ports 
it can use.  I do have those ports forwarded but I do remember reading an 
RFC saying that all nat devices should have port forwarding (I could be 
wrong), secondly I have a dynamic DNS account which is what I put in caser 
and as long is the program I use to update my address is working then that 
dns name will point to my public address.  The only way I can see around 
port forwarding for users not technically inclined to do it is to use 
listening techniques to open the port before its needed.   So when the 
program is started on the default or altered port the program would open 
that port in a listening state and wait for a connection.  I am not sure but 
I believe that regular listening ports are only opened on the host system, I 
do know that I have had a program that could open listening ports on the 
gateway connection but I wasn't able to track down exactly what program it 
was.  Finally I believe that we can actually learn a thing or two from the 
peer to peer file sharing programs. The fast track network based programs 
(No I didn't say kazaa, Kazaa is just a client that works on the Fast track 
network also gorkester, the new Morpheous works on the gneutella network) 
Seem to have a high success rate no matter what is in the way of the 
connection be it firewall, NAT, proxy, PAT IP tables or what!


I wrote this as not as a "I've thought of this why can't you" but more of an 
opinioned letter with hopefully some good ideas in it that would reach the 
developers that read this list and possibly be a catalyst for some brilliant 
new processes.  Although I have yet to actually use SF with anyone on the 
internet who I'd want to (just echo responses) I very much appreciate the 
program and the authors work on it.  Its not often anymore that someone 
makes something useful and gives it away, if found that everyone and 
everything is somehow business related and that businesses solemn goal is to 
make money period, support, updates, warranties are all just other ways of 
making money and insuring a customer base.  So I thank you John Walker and 
anyone who helped you for Speak Freely.

And for anyone who has read this whole barge of junk exuse me for taking up 
your time, and to everyone sorry for filling your mail boxes.

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


                      * * *

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send E-mail containing
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body (*not* as the
Subject) to [email protected]