Re: reqs for local addressing OR requirements for SLreplacement?[Re: Accept hain/templin draft as wg item?]

[Hans Kruse]

I fear this discussion is headed in the wrong direction as far as the 
decisions in this group.  You are of course right that filtering (by 
private or public addresses) at a border is not sufficient security.  But 
it DOES remove some unwanted traffic.  Is this relevant to local addressing 
-- probably not.  However, I have become convinced that some form of local 
addressing is required to allow network managers enough flexibility to 
solve their design issues.  I hope the WG can create these addresses, try 
to insure that they won't break things (as SL apparently did), and move on.

You mileage may (probably will) vary....

--On Monday, August 25, 2003 20:36 +0200 Leif Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

By contrast your private address space does not protect your network from
an attack which violates the basic assumption that there is an inside and
an outside. The added twist from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and friends is that you no
longer have to be a network security geek to appreciate this fact.


Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------