Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)

[Adam McKenna <adam-nanog () flounder net>]

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