[64587] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petri Helenius)
Tue Oct 28 15:30:45 2003
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:26:48 +0200
From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@eeph.com>
Cc: "'Greg Maxwell'" <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>,
"'nanog list'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000401c39d77$5742a3c0$0200b3cd@matthewdesk>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>End-to-end requires that people writing the software at the end learn about
>buffer overruns (and other data-driven access violations) or program using
>tools that prevent such things. It is otherwise an excellent idea.
>
>
>
There is supposedly some magic going into this in the next "Service
Pack" of a mentioned
major exploding Pinto. Not sure if itīs just flipping the joke of
firewall on by default or something
more comprehensive/destructive like non-executable stack. Or a
completely new invention like
bug free code :-)
>Unfortunately, the day that someone decided their poorly-designed machine
>and operating system would be safer sitting behind a "firewall" pretty much
>marked the end of universal end-to-end connectivity, and I don't see it
>coming back for a long long time. Probably not on this Internet. IPv6 or
>not.
>
>
Last I checked most "firewall"s donīt make these machines safe, it might
make them safer,
so only two out of three malwares hit them. Does not really help too much.
>Combine that with ISP pricing models (helped by registry policy) that
>encourage <=1 IP address per household, and the subsequent boom in NAT
>boxes, and the fate is probably sealed.
>
>
>
Here Iīve observed opposite trend, most ISPīs are getting rid of NATting
because itīs failure
prone and expensive to implement and keep running.
Pete
