SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

Matt Barrette mattbar at
Thu Jan 31 22:34:35 UTC 2002

To add more fuel to the fire, how does one combat the issue of "stolen" IP
addresses. Stolen IP's are worse to me than a user doing NAT.

Slightly intuitive users could figure out that their IP is one of a /24 and
just statically assign one to their other machine with out paying for it,
and worse take somebodies IP and make that user non-functional. I know the
cable modem service where I live will allow this type of activity.

At 01:37 PM 1/31/2002 -0800, Keith Woodworth wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
>|+On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Marc Pierrat wrote:
>|+> It's not very enforceable, so I'd be very surprised to see much money
>|+> spent on this witch hunt.
>|+At least one provider has a fully staffed full time "anti-nat" divison 
>|+now. But will they burn more cash in the nat witch-hunt than they save?
>|+I also wonder about false positives. Watch the lawsuits fly as they 
>|+mistakenly cutoff non-nat customers.
>From a technical standpoint how does one detect NAT users over the

 Matt Barrette
 Network Technician
 Email: mattbar at
 PH: 888-NETINS1

More information about the NANOG mailing list