Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>
Cc: Behave WG <behave at ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>, Routing Research Group Mailing List <rrg at irtf.org>, Eric Klein <ericlklein.ipv6 at gmail.com>, Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:57:32 +0100
In-reply-to: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFB4E at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <CA10A01F-D7A4-4769-BB06-7AF0FCC61F75 at muada.com> <courier.491ACAEB.000010B8 at softhome.net> <courier.491AEBCE.000003E0 at softhome.net> <21E58B55-65E2-4E95-9876-B9418A983BC8 at lilacglade.org> <491BFCCD.1040005 at cisco.com> <18d24aa20811130428g38183456ia296294bec0a1bf8 at mail.gmail.com> <491C3569.4010803 at cisco.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFB3F at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <491CAA17.7060903 at network-heretics.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFB4E at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

On 13 nov 2008, at 23:50, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

The most successful Internet protocols do not involve connections tohosts today. SMTP is a connection to a service and has been for twodecades.

In SMTP the IP address does not remain constant end to end and neverdid.

SMTP is also the least secure protocol that is in wide use; hop-by-hopforwarding without authentication of the message itself is a securitynightmare. We have the same issue with flooding of random IP packets.

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

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

References:
- Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Eric Klein
- Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Mark Townsley
- RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Keith Moore
- RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

Prev by Date: RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
Next by Date: Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
Previous by thread: Re: FTP to HISTORIC? RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
Next by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.