[Moderator's note: is using a NAT box "intent to defraud" a cable modem provider? --Perry]
The cable modem provider and the DSL provider at their consumer service level in my area both have explicit clauses in their AUP prohibiting "sharing" of the connection by multiple machines (I've seen various wordings, some explicitly mentioning NAT, others explicitly mentioning 802.11).
So in that case, yes, using NAT would seem to be "intent to defraud."
I'm with Steve Bellovin, I think it's the broadband providers who are behind this.
But the people saying glibly "good riddance NAT" (it's tempting, I know) are missing the real point here... this is a much greater threat to the end-to-end model of the Internet than NAT ever was.
This proposed law would give the broadband provider absolute power over the last mile, letting them separate the edge from the core more than ever before. Because now they'll do it with the force of criminal law. No longer can you ignore their AUPs by just tunneling through a VPN. You'll have to use the pipe exactly the way your provider says you can use it. If you don't they'll cut you off, but if you try to trick them and just hide how you're really using their pipe, by means of NAT, encrypted tunnels, or other outlawed technologies... then they'll send you to jail.
:j
--
Jürgen Botz | While differing widely in the various
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | little bits we know, in our infinite
| ignorance we are all equal. -Karl Popper
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
