Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Remotely Counting Machines Behind A NAT Box

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the you-knew-this-was-coming dept.

Overtone writes "Steve Bellovin of AT&T Labs Research has published a paper showing how to remotely count the number of machines hiding behind a NAT box (in IMW 2002, the Second Internet Measurement Workshop). Your friendly DSL or cable broadband provider could implement this technique to enforce their single-machine license clause. Bellovin explains how to change the NAT software to defeat the measurement scheme, but the fix is complicated and unlikely to appear in commercial home gateways anytime soon."

3 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. "the telephone model" by djeaux · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For about the last 20 years or so, unless one takes out a service contract, the telco is responsible only for the line to the outside of the building. I am responsible for the interior wiring & any extension phones that split off internally from the gray box outside.

    Why would the telco suddenly be able to impose a different standard on data communications? Just because an AT&T engineer has proposed some (time consuming) method to do something doesn't mean it will be done. A similar attitude about POTS is what got mighty Ma Bell busted lo these many years ago...

    Taking this one stumble father, I note that there is only one "computer" attached physically to the Bellsouth DSL line: a little cheap Linksys router, which having a processor & some flash ROM, qualifies as a "computer." Other computers do not connect directly to the DSL line, they connect to that router.

    Any telco/ISP that "cracks down" on home networking this way is just plain stupid & needs to go back to the mandatory customer service training workshops! In fact, that's where our dear AT&T enginner needs to be this very afternoon. It's the corporate equivalent of Chinese water torture!

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  2. Re:Not where I'm from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a properly-functioning economy, you'd be charging for traffic (tiered or metered) since that drives your cost. Your interest in how your customers are processing their traffic internally is inappropriate, and the IPv4 address space you're squandering should be reassigned to someone more ethical.

  3. Re:Not where I'm from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And why on earth would you have a metered T1 if you were an ISP? Is a flat-rate T1 simply not available in your area?

    I also operate an ISP, and we have a flat-rate T1. We don't care how many computers a customer has connected--we only care how much data is transferred, and we bill accordingly.

    I would not use an ISP that placed restrictions on how many computers I could connect, mom-and-pop ISP or not. Life's too short. I live in a house with four computers, and they all get used a good portion of the evening. Why should I have to put up four antennas just so I can hook up four computers?