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

Re: simple security

To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>
Subject: Re: simple security
From: RÃmi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:29:43 +0100
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <m1Nu7qH-0001dSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Organization: Remlab.net
References: <001501caca91$769511b0$63bf3510$@org> <201003231748.22841.remi@remlab.net> <m1Nu7KF-0001dEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <8cce4ee19c92e696c40fdd57371981c0@chewa.net> <m1Nu7qH-0001dSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:24:35 +0100, Philip Homburg

<pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:

> So you are saying that the kinds of holes that stateful firewalls protect

> against are only to be found in old systems, and somehow in the past

years

> the state of the art has advanced enough that new software has absolute

> none of those holes?



So you are saying that IPv6 is useless?

(yes, I am also able to leverage selective quoting to my own advantage)



Why would I want to deploy IPv6 to my home if it's just like IPv4 but

slower and more expensive?



-- 

RÃmi Denis-Courmont

http://www.remlab.net

http://fi.linkedin.com/in/remidenis

References:
- simple security
  - From: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
- Re: simple security
  - From: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net>
- Re: simple security
  - From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>
- Re: simple security
  - From: RÃmi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net>
- Re: simple security
  - From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>

Prev by Date: Re: simple security
Next by Date: Re: On filibusters as a mode of technical discussion
Previous by thread: Re: simple security
Next by thread: Re: simple security
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread