Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 27, 2004 04:27 AM
I've seen this discussion before about NAT vs. IPV6, and decided to put my 2 cents in, FWIW.
I use NAT on a Linksys router for my home network. It provides me with several benefits.
1. I can easily share a single internet connection between multiple computers. My ISP only gives multiple IP addresses to those paying a significantly higher monthly fee (you're now a business in their eyes), so this is cheaper. I doubt very much that switching to IPV6 would encourage the ISP to do anything different. It also doesn't tie-up a dedicated computer.
2. No one outside my home network can see any of the machines inside it (or at least, not easily). That's the way I like it -- it's my private network, and it's nobody's business what's in it but mine.
3. When I re-format and re-install Windows (which is, on average, at least once a year), NAT appears to give me time to download the necessary Windows Updates before someone tries to put a virus on the machine. I have heard of people getting infected within a few minutes of connecting to the Internet.
4. Port Forwarding (I don't know if this is considered a part of NAT, but it is a feature of the router) allows me to redirect port requests from the outside to any address on the network I want. I have even found a use for occasionally re-directing a port to a non-existing address.
5. I imagine they exist, but I haven't heard of a virus that attacks routers. An overwhelming number of viruses, however, do exist that attack the OS (Windows, mainly). Having the NAT on the router, and then a good firewall running on the computer, is, IMHO, an appropriate response to the reality of computing in this day and age.
Oh, for those that are wondering, my main operating system is Suse Linux, but I dual boot Windows XP Pro, since I need that for work sometimes. Most of my concerns lie with Windows, and not Linux.
Even if my ISP were to give out as many addresses as I need, I still don't want the machines on my network visible from the outside. If I ever replace NAT, it will probably be with something that does pretty much the same thing, only with better security.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
NAT and Home Networks
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 27, 2004 04:27 AMI use NAT on a Linksys router for my home network. It provides me with several benefits.
1. I can easily share a single internet connection between multiple computers. My ISP only gives multiple IP addresses to those paying a significantly higher monthly fee (you're now a business in their eyes), so this is cheaper. I doubt very much that switching to IPV6 would encourage the ISP to do anything different. It also doesn't tie-up a dedicated computer.
2. No one outside my home network can see any of the machines inside it (or at least, not easily). That's the way I like it -- it's my private network, and it's nobody's business what's in it but mine.
3. When I re-format and re-install Windows (which is, on average, at least once a year), NAT appears to give me time to download the necessary Windows Updates before someone tries to put a virus on the machine. I have heard of people getting infected within a few minutes of connecting to the Internet.
4. Port Forwarding (I don't know if this is considered a part of NAT, but it is a feature of the router) allows me to redirect port requests from the outside to any address on the network I want. I have even found a use for occasionally re-directing a port to a non-existing address.
5. I imagine they exist, but I haven't heard of a virus that attacks routers. An overwhelming number of viruses, however, do exist that attack the OS (Windows, mainly). Having the NAT on the router, and then a good firewall running on the computer, is, IMHO, an appropriate response to the reality of computing in this day and age.
Oh, for those that are wondering, my main operating system is Suse Linux, but I dual boot Windows XP Pro, since I need that for work sometimes. Most of my concerns lie with Windows, and not Linux.
Even if my ISP were to give out as many addresses as I need, I still don't want the machines on my network visible from the outside. If I ever replace NAT, it will probably be with something that does pretty much the same thing, only with better security.
#