Will this never end...?
If you want to be able to control individual lightbulbs in your house, how
about an IP <-> X10 gateway? X10 (as an example, not because I have any
particular attachment to it) is a useful protocol for controlling devices
(usually with limited "intelligence") within a hom
Date:Wed, 8 Dec 1999 06:57:25 +0100 (CET)
From:Sean Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| So, how many /20s are there in IPv6?
As Bill Manning said, potentially exactly the same number as there
are potentially in IPv4.
But there are a hell of
Date:Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:51:20 -0500 (EST)
From:Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| if it were easy to show this we would not be discussing the topic
| I don't know many companies who decide to do "*astonishingly*
| expensive" thin
At 21:17 07.12.99 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
>Sounds to me like at best I'd trade a NAT box with firewalling for a
>serious firewall.
Right. Insecure devices require protection, always.
> I have ZERO interest in allowing the kinds of things
>you describe to occur from outside. While you may no
At 06:05 PM 12/7/99 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
>randy,
>
>just because routers meltdown from leaks and mis-configurations is not a
>reasonable justification for ARIN's tight policies on IPv4 allocations,
>which kim stated earlier was to keep space aggrigated for router memory
>requirements, add
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >So, will any of our ISP readers go on the record as saying they'll
> >provide users of dialup and DSL/Cable lines to have a large block of
> >addresses each, instead of just a single host address?
>
> If you do the "native" IPv6 address assignment, it's impossib
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> obviously you have to have some security measures in place
> before you open up such things to the outside world. but
> that's an argument for better authentication technology, not for NAT.
Fully agreed.
Indeed, I doubt any average homeowner could eff
Ian King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will this never end...?
>
> If you want to be able to control individual lightbulbs in your house, how
> about an IP <-> X10 gateway?
Insufficient. I want IP. There is no point in implementing anything
less powerful than IP -- you only end up maintaining
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> I doubt any average homeowner could effectively run a
> firewall. It is necessary that the devices be secure ab initio, and
> only communicate to properly authenticated and authorized
> sources.
And yet, there is a trend towards "personal firewalls". Linux
includes
Well now, I think you are mis-interpreting the text. Remember that it was written
a number of years before ARP was invented. It refers to "mapping" and "translating"
apparently synonymously and I have always read that to mean ARPing and the like.
In any case this is not an issue by the time you g
Matt Holdrege wrote:
...
> Anythink mankind can lock, mankind can unlock. You will never get
> rid of firewalls. At least not in our lifetimes.
Probably not; they are after all such attractive targets for attackers, and much more
worth the effort than lightbulbs.
Brian
The point is that even conservative policies could easily allow a /64
per household.
Brian
Sean Doran wrote:
>
> | 1. if IPv6 allocation policies aren't a fair amount more liberal
> |than IPv4 ones in how much address space is doled out, they're
> |broken. there's still a need to agg
Rick,
I suspect you didn't read the important bit.
> > it's not the memory. it's the processing power required which is quite
> > non-linear.
This is not to do with operational accidents. It's to do with generic growth.
However, we should also engineer our systems to be robust during
operatio
> From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
> where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - let's try and
figure out things that sid
Noel,
> > From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
> > where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
>
> This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - let's try and
> figur
Folks,
Hammers are inteded to solve a certain problem space. So, we should
not use hammer to solve every problem we encounter, (or) ban hammers
altogeher because they do not solve all problems.
Now, the reality check. NATs donot respect end node ownership of
IP entities (IP-Addr, port # etc).
> From: Yakov Rekhter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> the fundamental architectural premise of NAT's *as we know them today*
>> - that there are no globally unique names at the internetwork level
> I would say that the fundamental architectural premise of NATs is that
> globally uniqu
"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
> > From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
> > where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
>
> This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - le
At 10:58 08.12.99 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
> >From ARIN's policy: "Addresses for dial-up lines should be assigned from
>the SLA block. It is expected that longer prefixes should be used for
>non-permanent, single-user connections." How will providers interpret
>this? ARIN's policy says "The min
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A /48 leaves 16 bits for subnetting, before you hit the 64 bits of flatspace.
And remember, if we ever need to, we can start subnetting the bottom
64 bits, at the loss of one form of stateless autoconf (which I'm
starting to find, in deployme
Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> > The very concept of data needs thus to revisited. Suppose we define data as the
> > *difference* D2 - D1 that can be measured between two states of data systems.
> > Then, it can be shown that this difference can be measured by means
> So, perhaps the same company could also make a NAT that
> any homeowner could use? Because if the problem of NATs is
> easy of use, and this is the key being banged here (the NY School
> Board example, etc.) then it is a problem of design.
NAT's problem is not ease of use. NAT's problem is
22 matches
Mail list logo
