Re:By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
by imjustapie on Monday June 26, 2017 @01:27PM
(#14638616)
Even in the old approach, you get publicly routable addresses over DHCP. The approval was for static addresses only, and was very fast, because you're literally on the same network as the DHCP addresses.
If they detect bad activity, they blacklist your MAC address so you can't connect. This is no different under the new scheme, and has nothing to do with NAT.
Re:By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation
by omegaworks on Monday June 26, 2017 @02:19PM
(#14639021)
Independent living communities controlled this process using an automated registration system. In my living group I was elected to the position democratically, attended a training seminar, and passed down the knowledge to my successor. I hope they continue to give the students the same autonomy.
But I have my doubts. http://pilot2021.com/index.html
I totally understand the need for a campus-wide firewall. The MIT network is a juicy target for botnets, and individual students are not good enough at running security on their own computers. The old approach to IP assignment was that you needed to get your IP approved and made routable by IS&T anyway, and if they detected botnet activity on your computer, they'd manually intervene and make it unroutable again. That sounds like a lot of work.
If computers end up with firewalled but publicly routable IPv6 addresses, that sounds perfect.