On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It's not the same thing. RFC 1918 and martian addresses aren't supposed
to be present on the internet, but aren't automatically harmful. Having
services that are explicitly labeled for internal use be visible to the
rest of the world is
On woensdag, aug 13, 2003, at 21:38 Europe/Amsterdam, Crist Clark wrote:
Cool. So if you use private ports, you'll be totally protected from the
Internet nasties (and the Internet protected from your broken or
malicious
traffic) in the same way RFC1918 addressing does the exact same thing
now
Lars Higham wrote:
It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6 administrative
scoping?
That's the network layer, not the transport layer. IPv6 scoping has the
potential to be very helpful for private addressing since it's fundamentally
built into the protocol, as opposed to
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:40:30PM +, Christopher L. Morrow quacked:
what about ports that start as 'private' and are eventually ubiquitously
used on a public network? (Sean Donelan noted that 137-139 were
originally intended to be used in private networks... and they became
'public'
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Crist Clark wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out
in the
Subject: Re: Private port numbers? Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:41:25AM -0700 Quoting
Crist Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Lars Higham wrote:
It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6 administrative
scoping?
That's the network layer, not the transport layer. IPv6 scoping
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out
in the open extremely easy to filter, while at the same
Mans Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: Private port numbers? Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:41:25AM -0700
Quoting Crist Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Lars Higham wrote:
It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6 administrative
scoping?
That's the network layer
The IETF IPNG WG home page can be found at:
http://playground.sun.com/ipng
The decision regarding site-local was made during the San
Francisco IETF meeting and then later confirmed on the mailing lists
although there has been quite some debate over it all since
