Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

I disagree with your statement on NAT end-points not being "publicly
accessible" -- that's certainly not true, and a myth that needs to be
finally killed.

The "statefulness" of the NAT gateway handles that -- it's a non-issue.

I get really tired of hearing people perpetuate this mistruth.

Of course, my comment on this has nothing to do with whatever the
original thread was...

- ferg



-- Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de> wrote:

[snip]

So I put all my customers behind a NAT device (or just a stateful
packet filter).  They are no longer publicly accessible, and hence not
subject to the provisions of this section.  Fixing that would probably
require companies to open up their corporate networks, which is a
non-starter.

(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that
Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate
networks, by the way.)


--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/