RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?

["Mansey, Jon" <Jon_Mansey () verestar com>]

To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that NAT is a great
way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want to imagine what the
billing/credit issues would be like if your always-on phone with a real IP
is used as a zombie in a DDOS. "Hey I didn't use all that traffic last
month....etc etc"

I still maintain, since the last time this was on Nanog, that real IP
addresses should not be entrusted to the great unwashed.

And as for NAT breaking applications, I think its time the applications
wised up and worked around the NAT issues. Look, if your application is
important enough to you as the developer, you are going to want it to
penetrate and work for as many ppl as possible right? Office workers, home
users with gateways, GPRS/GSM/3G cell users etc etc. So you make it use
protocols that traverse NAT without breaking. Look at the streaming media
players out there, they try to use, in order, multicast (the most effcient
and best quality), UDP,TCP then HTTP. If it cant get a connection with any
of the first protocols, it falls back to http, and you get your stream.

When you look at the economics of usability of your app, I think your going
to want to make it work through firewalls.

Jm


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake Khuon [mailto:khuon () NEEBU Net] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:51 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? 
>
>
>
> ### On Thu, 2 May 2002 10:42:01 +0200, "Daniska Tomas" 
> <tomas () tronet com> ### casually decided to expound upon 
> <nanog () merit edu> the following ### thoughts about "RE: Large 
> ISPs doing NAT? ":
>
> DT> and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also be a 
> DT> personal "ip gateway router" (or how you call that)... you could 
> DT> recursively iterate as deep as your mail size allows you to...
>
> It's possible.  Could it get ugly?  Yes.  Do we just want to 
> shut our eyes and say "let's not go there."... well... maybe. 
>  I just don't think the solution is to say, "this can never 
> happen... we must limit all handheld devices to sitting 
> behind a NAT gateway."
>
>
> DT> hope this thread will not end in a router behind a router that 
> DT> serves as a router seving as a router to another router which has 
> DT> some other routers connected...
>
> God forbid!  We might have a network on our hands!
>
>
> --
> /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon () NEEBU Net> 
> ]======================+
>  | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers     /| / [~ [~ |) | | 
> --------------- |
>  | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation  / |/  [_ [_ |) |_| N 
> E T W O R K S |  
> +=============================================================
> ============*/