[190434] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Mon Jul 4 13:21:14 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 02:21:04 +0900
In-Reply-To: <577A38C1.5000407@fhrnet.eu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Filip Hruska wrote:
> Without firewalls, internet is not very secure, regardless of protocol used.
Irrelevant.
The point of the Internet with end to end transparency is that
if end users want to have the end to end transparency, they
can have it.
If they don't, they don't have to.
Masataka Ohta
> On 07/04/2016 11:41 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>>> Actually they are not that great. Look at the DDoS mess that UPnP has
>>> created and problems for IoT (I call it Internet of trash, as most
>>> devices are poorly implemented without safety in mind) folks on all
>>> sides.
>>
>> Are you saying, without NAT or something like that to restrict
>> reachable ports, the Internet, regardless of whether it is with
>> IPv4 or IPv6, is not very secure?
>>
>> With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT
>> boxes to restrict port forwarding.
>>
>>> The fact that I go to a hotel and that AT&T mobility have limited
>>> internet reach is a technology problem that we all must work to fix.
>>
>> Want to run a server at the hotel?
>>
>> IP mobility helps you, if you have a home agent at your home and
>> you can use IP over UDP/TCP over IP as mobility tunnel.
>>
>> Masataka Ohta
>>>
>>>
>>> Jared Mauch
>>>
>>>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:49 PM, Masataka Ohta
>>>> <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And, to applications running over TCP/UDP, UPnP capable legacy NATs
>>>> are transparent, if host TCP/UDP are modified to perform reverse
>>>> NAT, information to do so is provided by UPnP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
