looks like itojun, so you should have nothing to fear ;) ...
joelja
On 26 Nov 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> I was wondering who at our host was going to be running the v6
> router/tunnels for the SLC IETF meeting...
>
> --
> Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> NetBSD D
I was wondering who at our host was going to be running the v6
router/tunnels for the SLC IETF meeting...
--
Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
Keith writes:
> the whole concept of a local-use-only device is
> somewhat odd. how can the device manufacturer
> make assumptions about his customers' network
> topology?
Imagine where we would be if this assumption were made in the assignment of MAC
addresses for Ethernet cards. The Net woul
Caitlin writes:
> If a node only requires accessibility by a
> few specialized nodes (such as a water meter)
> then making it *visible* to more is just
> creating a security hole that has to be plugged.
Only if the information made thus available itself constitutes a security
breach, which is no
John Stracke writes:
> Utility companies would love to be able to stop
> sending out expensive humans just to read one
> dial at each customer each month.
Where I live, they already have. The new meters are individually addressable
and will report the consumption they record on demand from a ce
Caitlin writes:
> That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and
> other existing mechanisms. These are devices
> that do not require global addressability. In
> fact they SHOULD NOT be globally addressable.
That's exactly why you only need one telephone per family. These are people who
don'
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> My point remains, a globally meaningful address is something that
> should only be applied when it is useful for that endpoint to
> be globally addressable.
This is your only valid point, and has nothing to do with NAT,
Firewalls, or anything else on this thread today...
*>
*> My point remains, a globally meaningful address is something that
*> should only be applied when it is useful for that endpoint to
*> be globally addressable.
*>
That sounds like an appealing statement, but it hides the potential
cost of giving up generality. Back when TCP/IP w
> Devices that are meant to be local-use only can use local scope
> addresses.
the whole concept of a local-use-only device is somewhat odd.
how can the device manufacturer make assumptions about his customers'
network topology? or about the placement of security threats relative
to that topol
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
>>>IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly need a
>>>globally accessible public address, not by insisting on counting devices
>>>that should remain anonymous or under limited (and controlled) visibility.
>>>
>>you appear to be confusing visibility with
> > > IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly need a
> > > globally accessible public address, not by insisting on counting devices
> > > that should remain anonymous or under limited (and controlled) visibility.
> >
> > you appear to be confusing visibility with accessibilit
>
> > IPv6 needs to be justified on the number of nodes that truly need a
> > globally accessible public address, not by insisting on counting devices
> > that should remain anonymous or under limited (and controlled) visibility.
>
> you appear to be confusing visibility with accessibility.
>
>That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and other existing
mechanisms.
Red herring alert: firewalling and NAT are orthogonal. Many NATs include
a firewall, but that's a market decision, not a technical necessity.
>These are devices that do not require global addressability.
Think water
> That's exactly why you want NAT/firewalling and other existing mechanisms.
> These are devices that do not require global addressability. In fact they
> SHOULD NOT be globally addressable.
first, don't confuse NAT with firewalls.they have entirely separate
functions which often happen to b
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> And this has been completed. The subscription information will be sent in
> a seperate message.
As [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems intent on reading afore-mentioned seperate and
complete message and then complaining about invalid commands[1], the
relevant in
> > 3) new devices that plug into residential networks (mostly new)
> >
> > What stops the new devices from having v4 with NAT to translate between the
> > internet and the house.
>
> nothing stops them, but if you want to access the devices from outside the
> house (and in many cases that's the
HT Kung & I have been working on some IDs dealing with anonymous forwarders
for signaling applications - we have established a mailing list to
talk about the IDs
to subscribe - send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "subscribe" (no quotes) as the subject
the IDs are
draft-bradner-
Rinka Singh wrote:
>
> Please can you help me understand how it gets in the way.
>
> As I understand these devices would:
> - accept (authenticated) commands - perhaps snmp (there's some thought
> of using sip proxy commands) format.
> - send status/traps (snmp again).
>
> Any NAT would be able
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Rinka Singh wrote:
> Any NAT would be able to translate both ways - OK it would stumble if
> there was end-to-end encryption but a small device may not have
> encryption capability. It should be easy to add NAT (one would need a
> router, firewall, gateway/gatekeeper anyway)
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> FWIW, the ietf-announce list had 4717 subscribers (some of which are
> sublists, news gateways and the like) - so any category where you get more
> than 400 subscribers is probably proof positive that a "market" exists for
> a special list for that
Please can you help me understand how it gets in the way.
As I understand these devices would:
- accept (authenticated) commands - perhaps snmp (there's some thought
of using sip proxy commands) format.
- send status/traps (snmp again).
Any NAT would be able to translate both ways - OK it would
> 3) new devices that plug into residential networks (mostly new)
>
> What stops the new devices from having v4 with NAT to translate between the
> internet and the house.
nothing stops them, but if you want to access the devices from outside the
house (and in many cases that's the point of such
One question.
> 1) Cell phones (historically <2 yr replacement cycle)
> 2) PCs with IPv6 installed (less than 5 yr replacement cycle)
> 3) new devices that plug into residential networks (mostly new)
What stops the new devices from having v4 with NAT to translate between the
internet and the hou
24 matches
Mail list logo
