Keith Moore wrote: > > In other words, you think the networks of the future should be every > bit as dysfunctional as today's networks. It is not dysfunctional just because it is slightly more complicated to use that if everything was freely accessible to complete self-service. > > I think we can all agree that (a) ordinary users are not security experts, agreed > > and (b) practically all network protocol servers are vulnerable to attack. Nope. The risk is directly related to the complexity of the accessible parts. That is why I want the internet gateway to be a NAT, maybe even an IPv4 NAT. I doesn't take that much to make the outwards facing parts of an IPv4 NAT completely bug-free. > > However it does not follow that home networks need NAT or private address > space. Those are hacks of the 1990s. They always were shortsighted, and > they turned out to be an operational disaster. We can do better. NAT and private address space for the home networks is as healthy to the internet population as is water & soap to the health of mankind. One may have to remind small kids regularly to wash their hands, but of them grasp the concept and the benefits when they grow up. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf