On 2012-03-29 01:01, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Kline <[email protected]> writes:
> Erik> Mark,
>
> Erik> For the record, the walled garden citation I quoted was from:
>
> Erik> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3002#section-4.2
>
> yes, I found it during the meeting.
> I think you are taking it out of context of:
> - the time before 2000
> - when "wireless carriers" were not running IP at all, but providing
> access to email/etc. via application layer gateways!!!!
Certainly we were worried about WAP at the time, but the language was
careflly written to be more generic than that (I had something to do
with drafting it).
>
> and it was a summary of an IAB workshop, not an IAB recommendation.
At that time we were less strict about the formality or otherwise of
IAB documents, but iirc there was pretty strong consensus behind
the "musts" in the text Erik quoted.
>
> I much prefer to engineer for walled gardens using globally unique
> addresses GUA (not globally reachable) ("GUAnGR"?), than for NAT66.
>
> I also want to point out that the experience with IPv4 "walled gardens"
> usually involves either operators squatting on "unallocated" address
> spaces, or enterprises running non-unique RFC1918 networks with
> VPNs/Remote-Access. None of these things are going away.
>
> The example of "Joe's web cam", and whether we should use:
> - ULA/GUA in DNS with views (what about caches and DNSSEC?)
> or - ULA+GUA in DNS (multiple AAAA) plus Happy Eyeballs
>
> is pertinent. Because the ULA is a walled garden. And if it's really
> "Joes' office webcam via VPN", then the Enterprise is a walled garden.
But neither of those are "captive customers" in the sense that WAP
threatened or that some carriers still seem to be hoping for.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
