[192238] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Death of the Internet, Film at 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Sun Oct 23 06:11:36 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:11:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <83338d777e188642b655159c2c40b2b0@mail.dessus.com> (Keith
Medcalf's message of "Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:14:13 -0600")
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* Keith Medcalf:
> On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei
> <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>> > This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the
>> little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
>
>> Problem is that many of these gadgets want to be internet connected so
>> mother at work can check on her kids at home, start the cooking, raise
>> thermostat etc.
>
> This does not require that the devices be open to the Internet, nor
> does it require that they are under the control of an Internet based
> controller.
How would you know?
It is perfectly reasonable to send a notification to a device by
making a TCP connection to it. This is the way the Internet was
built. You are not expected to sign a contract with the network
operator for the target device before you can establish a connection
to the device.
The possibility of denial-of-service attacks is not a sufficient
reason to change that model.
