-----Original Message----- From: Januszewski, Joseph (CIT) Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:08 PM To: Subject: FW: Should IP Security be Optional?
I think this has taken on a larger context than just cellular. (Which is I guess why the Subject line has changed). Don't forget that IPv4 is that it was designed in the early 70's, and people were surrounded by IBM 360s and DEC PDP-11s, and a whole bunch of other machines that no longer exist. But, one of its strengths, although designed in that environment, is that it allowed for growth through the Web phase of the Internet. Radiotelephones were the closest you got to mobile telephones at that time, and today's wireless Email clients are starting to look like something out of a Dick Tracy comic. Beyond a short trip down memory lane (or to the Smithsonian, depending on your age), I guess what I am suggesting is that we would be limiting the applicability of IPv6 if we just thought in terms of cellular media and wireless browsers. In 1974, when the "@" sign started to be used for "the new electronic mail application", how many people were thinking "BlackBerry"? It has been said that no one intends on being around when IPv8 or IPv12 (or what have you) has to be designed. In that case, what needs to happen is a larger, more generic framework needs to be designed that new technologies can be merged into. Also, that means that IP security should not be optional. Whether September 11th took place, or not, the world has been and is full of all kinds of people - most nice, but some not nice. For commerce, communications and information transfer of all sorts to take place, we need to think in these terms. Cordless phones have scrambling features, and police scanners that were the rage 20 years ago are mostly obsolete because the authorities realized that everyone - including criminals - could listen in on their operations. The Internet is nearing maturity, and should have these features built-in now, before it is totally ubiquitous, and we have to continue to bolt-on security just like we've done with IPv4, and every so-called modern operating system. My $.02 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 8:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Should IP Security be Optional?[Was RE:draft-ietf-ipv6-cellu lar-host-00.txt -> wg last call?] > > > This seems to presume that you can predict in advance all of the > > > applications that a user will wish to execute on a particular node. Can you > > > do that? > > > > On a workstation you can't. On a tiny cellular device you > > often can. > only if the device doesn't have a data port. Actually then (especially in 3GPP devices) the IP stack will actually also be behind that dataport, i.e. in the laptop. That is then a different story. -Jonne. -------- Jonne Soininen Nokia Tel. +1 650 864 6794 Cellular: +1 650 714 7733 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
