[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "John ." <jvoigt at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option?
 Date:  Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:37:44 -0500
On 11/30/05, Charlie Barker <CharlieBarker at redlinesoftware dot co dot uk> wrote:
> If it cannot be denied that home users make up a significant % of the
> m0n0wall user base

The above statement implies that all home users need/want UPNP which
is simply not the case.  I've been using monowall almost since the
very beginning (Hi Manuel) and monobsd as a platform to build embedded
firewall/AP code before that and I've never found any need for UPNP
either at a customer site or on a home network.  Many other home users
are in the same situation.  There are plenty of inexpensive UPNP
capable solutions so perhaps they are a better choice if UPNP is a
requirement.  Or if some of the advanced features of monowall are
needed then perhape the UPNP portion of the network should be double
NATed or put in a DMZ network.

Bulking up the mono image size with security holes is a really bad
idea and diverting resources into parallel development doesn't seem
too smart either.  If we try and make monowall "one size fits all"
we'll end up with "one size fits no one well."

Just my opinion - not even worth 2 cents. :)