![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
RE: Worms versus Bots
From: "Michel Py" <michel () arneill-py sacramento ca us>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:00:36 -0700
Matthew Crocker wrote: We require a NAT device or true firewall on all DSL customer connections. We sell cheap Linksys boxes to customers or they can upgrade to a SonicWall.
This makes a lot of sense to me. It's not a silver bullet, but it does help.
I still like PPPoE for customer authentication because I can place individual packet filters or re-assign users to different contexts based on username/password authentication. PPPoE/NAT is a good combination.
Tends to be a non-issue now, but it's a lot easier to deal with PPPoE on the Linksys than have the customer install a more or less crummy PPPoE client on their PC. The cost of dealing with one customer that trashed their PC installing an early PPPoE client (with the help of helpdesk :-( is worth ten Linksys. Michel.
Current thread:
- Re: FW: Worms versus Bots, (continued)
- Re: FW: Worms versus Bots Chris Adams (May 07)
- Re: FW: Worms versus Bots Jeff Shultz (May 07)
- Re: FW: Worms versus Bots Alexei Roudnev (May 07)
- RE: FW: Worms versus Bots Smith, Donald (May 04)
- RE: FW: Worms versus Bots Smith, Donald (May 04)
- Message not available
- RE: FW: Worms versus Bots Daniel Senie (May 04)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- RE: FW: Worms versus Bots Rob Nelson (May 04)
- Re: Worms versus Bots Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 06)
- Re: Worms versus Bots Valdis . Kletnieks (May 06)