Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Rachel Polansk » Tue, 08 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Hello,
I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.

I work at the Uni as a sysadmin...

Tonight I just got an email from my boss saying that he did not like my SO
sharing my dialin acct.

technically he doesn't does he?

A finger to the port I am on does show my partner's name on the
list, but technically he was on my linux box - that was what the finger
would show.

My SO does not know about DIP, and does not know my acct details.

He often telnets from his SPARC to the net and also does FTP and WWW,
within and without the Uni (he works there too).

we use IP masq since it is an ecnomical use of network and annex resources.

what do the rest of you think?

I would like messages in the positive and the negative to present to my boss
(in case I am carpeted) as an argument for my using this feature...

:(

rachel

--
Rachel Polanskis                 Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia


                Witty comment revoked due to funding cuts

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Karsten Jeppes » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



>Hello,
>I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
>SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.

>I work at the Uni as a sysadmin...

>Tonight I just got an email from my boss saying that he did not like my SO
>sharing my dialin acct.

In these days where employees seems to overestimate their need for
bandwidth and therefore tends to spend unnescesarry funds for private
dial-up connections which in turns also leads to envy in other places
that can't afford more than two phone lines per employee, it is nice
to see that you and your friend has realized the possibilities in
sharing resources.
Not only will it lessen the load on the basic network services in your
company/uni but it also shows responsibility in the act of handling
the available resources in a cost efficient manner.

Could it be said more poetic.....

Karsten Jeppesen

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Trever Mill » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00


: Hello,
: I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
: SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.

: I work at the Uni as a sysadmin...

: Tonight I just got an email from my boss saying that he did not like my SO
: sharing my dialin acct.

: technically he doesn't does he?

: A finger to the port I am on does show my partner's name on the
: list, but technically he was on my linux box - that was what the finger
: would show.

: My SO does not know about DIP, and does not know my acct details.

Does your SO also have a dialup account?  If so, explain
just as you did in this message how the network stuff works without
him actually being "in" your account when it's connected.

--


"The stupider it looks, the more important it probably is." -- J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Jon Bloo » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> Hello,
> I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
> SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.

Since your SO also works at the Uni, is he entitled to his own dial-in
account? If so, then your boss should be amenable to the argument that
you and your SO are, as you say, making more efficient use of the
resources by sharing a single dial-in. (It also allows the two of you
to work at the same time since, presumably, you don't have two phone
lines.) On the other hand, if he's not entitled to his own account,
you're in effect giving a Uni resource to a party not entitled to it.
Even though you are using only one dial-in, the two of you are still
using more of the overall bandwidth than if only you were using the
account. So the question turns on whether your SO is entitled to use
of the Uni Internet service.

That said, it's the Uni's resource, and they can set any conditions
on its use they want. Even if you don't agree with your boss'
reasoning, it is his right to set whatever conditions make sense
to him and your obligation to honor those conditions.

Quote:>                 Witty comment revoked due to funding cuts

I've also experienced funding cuts due to witty comments. :-)

--
Jon Bloom

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Donnie Sava » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00


: Hello,
: I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
: SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.
:
: I work at the Uni as a sysadmin...
:
: Tonight I just got an email from my boss saying that he did not like my SO
: sharing my dialin acct.
:
: technically he doesn't does he?
Ummm... yes I think technically he is; he may not be using your
_system_account_ but from your description he very much is using your dial
in account.

:
: A finger to the port I am on does show my partners name on the
: list, but technically he was on my linux box - that was what the finger
: would show.
Yes I agree....

:
: My SO does not know about DIP, and does not know my acct details.
OK, this could win points with your boss...

:
: He often telnets from his SPARC to the net and also does FTP and WWW,
: within and without the Uni (he works there too).
OK so this blows my mind. If he works there, and is not privy to your
password/accounts then why would your boss care?  Is your SO in a
different department? Does the firm 'bill' each department differently? If
so maybe your boss is concerned about the using his(her) budget to pay for
another departments net access...????

: we use IP masq since it is an ecnomical use of network and annex resources.
another positive point to make with your boss...

:
: what do the rest of you think?
I think it does not matter what I think, what matters is what your boss
thinks. You may want to discuss the usage and see if you can work
something reasonable out - point out the positive benefits to the
_company_ (like one less modem tied up) and ask to understand what the
issue really is.  It could be budgeting, it could be misunderstanding as
to how you are using the service.  

Keep in mind as a sysadmin, you quite posiably have access to information
your SO would not/should not have access to. You boss maybe concerned
about this.

Keep in mind the final word, however, would have to be from you boss
which is ultimately responisable for equipment usage justification.

:
: I would like messages in the positive and the negative to present to my boss
: (in case I am carpeted) as an argument for my using this feature...
:

hope I gave some of both....

-donnie

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Don Mahuri » Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> Hello,
> I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
> SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.

> I work at the Uni as a sysadmin...

> Tonight I just got an email from my boss saying that he did not like my SO
> sharing my dialin acct.

> technically he doesn't does he?

> A finger to the port I am on does show my partner's name on the
> list, but technically he was on my linux box - that was what the finger
> would show.

> My SO does not know about DIP, and does not know my acct details.

> He often telnets from his SPARC to the net and also does FTP and WWW,
> within and without the Uni (he works there too).

> we use IP masq since it is an ecnomical use of network and annex resources.

> what do the rest of you think?

> I would like messages in the positive and the negative to present to my boss
> (in case I am carpeted) as an argument for my using this feature...

> :(

> rachel

IP Masquerading is NOT unethical, it IS efficient.

In fact, there are not enough IP addresss for everyone in the world.
And every host does not need its own IP address, as every host does not
need to act as a server(for web pages, news servers ...).

Using IP Masquerading is lest costly for you, better for the Internet,
Environmentally friendly, Dolphin safe, and made from neither trees nor
oil.

See ya at the Masquerade party.

Don Mahurin

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Felix Chirci » Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> Hello,
> I have been using IP Masq for over a year now to give myself and my
> SO access to the net via our Uni acct and ISP.
> I work at the Uni as a sysadmin...
> Tonight I just got an email from my boss saying that he did not like my SO sharing my dialin acct.
> technically he doesn't does he?
> we use IP masq since it is an ecnomical use of network and annex resources.
> what do the rest of you think?
> I would like messages in the positive and the negative to present to my boss
> (in case I am carpeted) as an argument for my using this feature...
> :(
> rachel
> --
> Rachel Polanskis                 Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia


>                 Witty comment revoked due to funding cuts

I think it is a great idea. I am using masquerading on my Linux box too,
and there are many reasons for doing this:
First, I do not have to get an entire domain or tens of IP's for my
network. I have one IP and that is all.
Second, I do not have to bother about security holes and problems on all
my machines. It is enough I have to worry about the machine really
connected to the Internet :-)
Third (and most important), the cost for the entire network is reduced.
I only have to pay access for one box, and my provider has the lowest
fee for only one IP.
And last but not least, many problems with the network configuration are
solved this way. I have a pretty complex configuration, running Linux,
Unix and Macintosh boxes on the same network, and not all of them are
used for Internet access. This way I can separate traffic on the
intranet from that on the Internet, making outside access much faster.

Hope this will help you. As for the ethical problem, frankly I never
quite thought of that. There are, still, _good_ reasons for using
masquerading, in my opinion.

Regards,

Felix Chirciu
System Administrator and Communications Manager
The Daily ZIUA Newspaper
Bucharest, Romania

 
 
 

Is IP Masquerade unethical?

Post by Michael Thoma » Tue, 15 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> I could see the ISP getting upset if you left the connection nailed up 24
> hours a day. I could also see the administration type people getting upset if
> you gave _your_ password etc. to someone else and let them in your account.

> Masquerading doesn't do that though -- your account authorizes the
> connection, but your SO utilizes his own account or whatever other resource
> on the internet.

  Yet, the line is still up the entire time. The
ISP is still sort of screwed on that account.

  I wonder what an ISP would have to say about a
"real" single machine on your network -- say a
box running Linux -- which is hosting several
"xterm's" running Netscape. No masquerading in
that case, and you only have one machine dialing
up, but the same effect on the ISP end.
  Whatever. If an ISP is of the mindset that a
single IP-address PPP connection will only be used
by a braindead operating system which can only be
useful to one person at a time, they deserve to
get taken advantage of, IMO.
--

 
 
 

1. IP for masqueraded net other than masquerading host IP

Hello

I have a linux box which should work as router for two subnets to the internet.
One subnet has valid IP addresses but the other subnet with private IPs has to be masqueraded. Is it possible to masquerade this subnet with an IP address from the other subnet or with the IP of the router port which is connected to the valid subnet and not with the IP address of the router port which is connected to the internet which is the default?

regards
Klaus

2. DMA borked in 2.4.20-pre5-ac1

3. Ip-Masquerade and games over the net...what am I doing wrong????????

4. No route to host

5. Change Max file's size to 4G bytes

6. IP Masquerading works, but does not masquerade from within the local network

7. Label a great amount of disks using the format command

8. IP MASQuerading NOT Masquerading?

9. Backup scripts, IP firewalling and IP masquerading

10. IP NAT and IP Masquerading

11. IP-Chains vs. IP-Masquerade