Public ipv6 address : firewall :: public street address : locked
door/fence/guard dog
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept ALL
traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential problems based
on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining him standing at
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept ALL
traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential problems based
on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining him standing at the
front gate of your gated community. ;) (let¹s torture that analogy!)
There's
On 12/11/2013 9:21 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept
ALL traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential
problems based on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining
him standing at the front gate of your gated community.
On Dec 11, 2013 5:45 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 12/11/2013 9:21 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept
ALL traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential
problems based on Larry knowing your address rather
Subject: Re: [nznog] Web Servers: Dual-homing or DNAT/Port Forwarding?
Message-ID: 52a5f649.7070...@insync.za.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; Format=flowed
Hi,
I normally use a combination of 1 and 2. I prefer 1 for weird and
not nat friendly protocols, like SIP or some other
shouldn't allow
unsolicited connections to hit your internal workstation on any address
scheme.
Cheers,
Alex.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 05:56:41 +1300
From: Pieter De Wit pie...@insync.za.net
To: nz...@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] Web Servers: Dual-homing or DNAT/Port Forwarding?
Message
On 12/10/2013 4:30 PM, Geraint Jones wrote:
Number 1 gets you thinking along the IPv6 route (no pun, and imho :) )
since you have to treat each boxes as if it was public.
I see this kind of statement surprisingly often. Having a public address
doesn't make a device public.
Yes it does,
On 11/12/13 1:47 pm, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 12/10/2013 4:30 PM, Geraint Jones wrote:
Number 1 gets you thinking along the IPv6 route (no pun, and imho :) )
since you have to treat each boxes as if it was public.
I see this kind of statement surprisingly often. Having
workstation on any address
scheme.
Cheers,
Alex.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 05:56:41 +1300
From: Pieter De Wit pie...@insync.za.net
To: nz...@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] Web Servers: Dual-homing or DNAT/Port Forwarding?
Message-ID: 52a5f649.7070...@insync.za.net
Content-Type: text
On Dec 10, 2013, at 8:27 PM, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Correct. IPv6 correctly supports the end to end model.
Yes, if you know the IP address of my printer you can use up my toner (it’s
already low) and paper. Then again, It’s IPv6 so good luck finding it. The
first nibble is 2.
Greetings,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 10, 2013, at 8:27 PM, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Correct. IPv6 correctly supports the end to end model.
Yes, if you know the IP address of my printer you can use up my toner
(it’s already low) and paper. Then again, It’s
11 matches
Mail list logo
