Eric,
Just one comment on your email:
> > A key requirement on addressing is that much of this consumer equipment
> > (printers, light switches, etc) needs to be able to communicate locally
> > without being directly exposed to the global Internet. At the same time
> > the same network infrastructure will be used by devices that do need
> > global Internet access.
>
> I think this view of consumer equipment not benefitting from globally
> communication is very short-sighted.
> For instance, today I see benefits of being able to send video directly
> from a camcorder at home to the vcr/display at my parents house, to be
> able to turn up the thermostat in a winter vacation house before driving
> over there, and to be able to print on a printer at home when I'm on the
road.
> The key is how to secure this.
>
> I think the above statement reflects this short-sighted resignation that
we
> as a communication don't know how to make usable security work for small
> devices used by consumers. But there is at least research on this
> topic (using various imprinting techniques etc); for certain classes
> of interaction I think usable security for small devices is not very far
away.
>
I agree with your point that security is the issue, and I agree that
research coming along may lead to the potential for better, simpler security
between consumer devices.
But much of the appeal for firewalls (and some people extend this to limited
scope addressing, but I'm not sure if the extension is really necessary)
lies in their ability to limit DoS attacks. DoS attacks are essentially
attacks on a network and I have some trouble seeing how end to end security
between two devices can limit a DoS attack. Maybe I am missing something,
however.
jak
_______________________________________________
Saad mailing list
Saad@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saad
