Re: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

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

 



Hi, Tony,

>> I have a feeling the idea that IPv6 add something to security might
>> be linked back to the IPsec focus real early on in the IPv6 era,
>> like years and years ago. Why it happen or how, I don't really
>> know.
> 
> How it happened?  --- Ever heard of NAT? At the time IPsec through
> nat did not widely exist, and even implementations that figured out
> udp had the problem that the cert often included a 1918 address which
> didn't match the packet header source address. It is easy to forget
> context when bashing something after the fact...

Sorry, but I don't follow. If the problem with widespread deployment of
IPsec was NAT traversal, why didn't we see widespread IPsec deployment
(for the general case) e.g. once RFC 3948 was published?

And: Do you expect IPsec deplyment to increase dramatically as IPv6 gets
deployed?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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