Re: On saving end-to-end transparency

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>]

On 03/23/2010 08:21 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> For information: the IPv6 we have here is WITHOUT any filter
>> (confirmed by the IETF NOC).
>> Does anyone report a security problem ;-) ?
> 
> Are there any possiblity to report security problems? You know, IETF
> folks are more technically competent than the average home users. They
> know what they are doing on their computers.

hah you're funny. No they don't.

> I think there is still some needs to hide home network devices:
> - no longer supported but know to be vulnerable devices, servers
> - devices without access control
> - etc.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
>         Janos Mohacsi
> 
>>
>>
>> Le 23 mars 2010 ? 06:32, Mohacsi Janos a Ãcrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 08:32:38AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>>> That will have to be a working group decision. We have your opinion
>>>>> on the record.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's err on the side of our ideals here. Publish
>>>>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security, but do so without
>>>>>> default-deny rules on by default. Let's not break end-to-end IPv6
>>>>>> before it even has a chance to grow up.
>>>>
>>>> Add another opinion to that.
>>>>
>>>> - have firewalling in there
>>>> - default to "end-to-end communication permitted"
>>>
>>> Yes to have the firewalling capabilities in CPE (reflective session
>>> state if you like)
>>> Yes to be default end-to-end communication permitted - but could be
>>> switched to default to deny by the end users, if he or she prefers
>>> NAT like behaviour.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>         Janos Mohacsi
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>