Am 25.06.2014 um 21:03 schrieb Fred Baker (fred) <fred@xxxxxxxxx>: I suppose part of this is the definition of a “service”. I think it’s fair to say that your average residential user doesn’t have the kind of service infrastructure in his or her home that an ISP would provide. But I think that’s actually a pretty restrictive definition of a "service”. You’re thinking in that old fashion i described. As i wrote i.e. Skype and TeamViewer ARE products who show that even many (or most?) end users STILL want to provide IP services to the public network in any way. By fact, these „i want to offer IP services from home sometimes solutions“ are much more insecure by structure and principle than anything i can imagine today - they require a perforated „Firewall“ and full access of a third party as super user into their own networks. NAT is no workaround for a bad configured firewall or similar. cheerioh, Niels. — Syndicat IT & Internet Gosslerstr. 34, Goettingen, DE |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail