> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:20 PM
> To: Howard, Lee
> Cc: james woodyatt; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture & Interim Meeting
>
>
> In message
> <dcc302faa9fe5f4bba4dcad4656937791451334...@prvpexvs03.corp.twcabl
> e.com>
> "Howard, Lee" writes:
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> > > Behalf Of
> james
> > > woodyatt
> > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:07 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture & Interim Meeting
> > >
> > > On Oct 10, 2011, at 19:45 , Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All of this is only true for IPv4 but not for IPv6.
> > >
> > > I wasn't talking about IPv4 at all.  My comments are relevant in a world 
> > > entirely
> comprising
> > > IPv6-only service providers.  The IPv6 Internet will be saddled with all 
> > > of the problems
> of
> > > the IPv4 Internet with respect to devices on homenets having to beg the 
> > > gateways to
> allow
> > > inbound packets from arbitrary remote destinations.  It has nothing to do 
> > > with NAT,
> and
> > > everything to do with firewalls and stateful filters.
> >
> > s/beg/authorize
>
>
>
> That response seems to be confirming the problem.
>
> The customer should not need the ISP to authorize inbound traffic.
> Otherwise the service should not be called an "Internet" service.  It
> is a service providing only limited Internet connectivity.

Perhaps I misunderstood the scenario.
I would have the sentence read:
"Devices on homenets have to authorize gateways to allow inbound packets
from arbitrary remote destinations."

Hosts can set their own security policy.  If it's "send me everything," it
can signal a firewall (using e.g. PCP) to allow everything.  If it's "do not 
call,"
it can signal a firewall (using e.g. PCP) to deny anything not explicitly
allowed.

I do not adhere to "default permit" as a security principle.

Lee

> Curtis

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to