[64281] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IAB concerns against permanent deployment of edge-based filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@karoshi.com)
Sat Oct 18 16:24:40 2003
From: bmanning@karoshi.com
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bmanning@karoshi.com, eric@roxanne.org (Eric Gauthier),
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200310181936.h9IJaqLW029947@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> from "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" at Oct 18, 2003 03:36:52 PM
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > > > There is a real danger that long-term continued blocking will lead
> > > > to "everything on one port"
> > fair amount of handwaving there.
>
> Question: Why was RFC3093 published? (Think(*) for a bit here...)
> About a month later, there was a *major* flame-fest on the IETF list due to
> this message:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg11918.html
>
> What major P2P applications have included a "run over port 80" option to let
> themselves through firewalls?
lots.
> It's not just handwaving.
the handwaving is based on some presumption about what
is on the other side of the "port 80" spiggot.
what other services are enabled on your systems that
listen to port 80?
do you have systems that don't speak/listen on port 80?
> (*) Remember - satire isn't funny if it isn't about something recognizable...
... to someone. :)
--bill
