From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] NAT
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064935529@[192.168.42.6]>
In-Reply-To: <32217.135.214.42.162.1064954559.squirrel@www.infernopark.com>
References: <200309301914.h8UJEXN29405@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca>
 <32217.135.214.42.162.1064954559.squirrel@www.infernopark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:25:29 -0600
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 594c4680-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


On Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:42 PM -0400 vdharani@infernopark.com
wrote:


>> more than a casual interest for me.  I'm not particularly trusting of
>> those little NAT firewall boxes that everyone seems so enamored with
>> these days.
> whats wrong with it? I think those boxes works well (and act as
> plug-and- play firewalls).

Only if all[*] of your internal hosts do the uPnP dance with the NAT box.
None of mine do.

--lyndon

[*] Well, the ones that need to communicate with the world at large. In
my case that's all of the hosts on my internal network.