RE: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

> I noticed that by deafult MS Vista doesn't use autoconf as 
> per 2462, rather it uses a 3041-like random address.  See:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/network/evaluate/
> new_network.mspx

This should hardly be a surprise. The inability of the IETF to accept as
legitimate real world security concerns at the time 2462 was written was as
notorious as its insistence on certain irrelevant concerns being absolute.

It the real world I am actually very concerned if someone is able to
determine my MAC address. It opens up a significant amount of information
about my internal network that in the real world I have no intention of
sharing.

During the 1990s many people, myself included mistook applying cryptography
for security. 

In the real world what network managers want to do and will insist on having
tools to acomplish is to guard the boundary between the internal and
external network as closely as possible and to prevent any piece of
unnecessary information crossing that barrier in either direction.

It is certainly a mistake to consider this practice a sufficient condition
for security but anyonje who does not understand that it is a necessary
party of a security strategy has little to contribute to today's security
architecture.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]