> Lisa's working on an assignment we're tentatively calling
> "The welcome death of the VPN,"
There's one thing here, that I didn't see anybody mention ...
DirectAccess is based on IPv6, and although IPv6 has been in production
usage for years on backbones, it is *far* from universally available
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:46:43AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> As long as it's not universally available, it can't be called "death of the
> VPN." The IPv4 VPN will still be required on everybody's corporate laptops.
I believe that the point of DirectAccess (and other VPN software that
uses
Dave Close wrote:
> An employer has a similar system. But the numbers are sequential so,
> were they email addresses, a spammer could hit nearly everyone without
> hardly trying. And they would create the hazard of sending mail to the
> wrong person inadvertently, with no reliable confirmation of j
> As long as it's not universally available, it can't be called "death of
> the
> VPN." The IPv4 VPN will still be required on everybody's corporate
> laptops.
Realistically, if you want to eliminate the need for a VPN client on
laptops, within the reasonably shortsighted future, you've got to im
> Realistically, if you want to eliminate the need for a VPN client on
> laptops, within the reasonably shortsighted future, you've got to
> implement
> things across https.
(Sorry, I wrote this before I saw Jonathan's post about IPv6 over IPv4. If
that's correct - and you can tunnel the IPv6 a
