>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <Brian> writes:
>> 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.
Brian> But neither of those are "captive customers" in the sense
Brian> that WAP threatened or that some carriers still seem to be
Brian> hoping for.
So, is the term "walled garden" inappropriate then, and we are arguing
about nothing?
We aren't talking about captive customers. The specific *technical*
requirement is actually:
You can't *there* if you start with that source IP.
or: If you want to go *there*, you must start from *here*
or: Ingress filtering rules
(with allusions to: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WouldntStartFromHere )
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
pgpJmAuKDqCWI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
