IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))

Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Thu, 03 April 2003 20:47 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13035; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:47:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 191Bo8-0000LC-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:59:36 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 191Bms-0000Hw-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:58:18 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12747 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:41:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cisco.com (erosen-u10.cisco.com [161.44.134.50]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h33Kf4do010409; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:41:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200304032041.h33Kf4do010409@rtp-core-1.cisco.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com>, ietf@ietf.org, fredrik@packetfront.com, ipv6-fb@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: v6 support (was Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)))
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:34:10 -0500. <20030403173410.9EC8A7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (Unebigoryōmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:41:04 -0500
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Steve> I  can't get upset  about Microsoft  declining to  ship poorly-tested
Steve> code.  Given how many security  holes are due to buggy, poorly-tested
Steve> programs, I applaud anyone who takes that seriously. 

Well, suppose they were to ship IPv6 without IPsec, on the grounds that they
didn't have the testing resources  for IPsec.  Would you still be applauding
them?  Or would you be questioning whether they have their priorities right? 

Features always fall off due to the inability to allocate sufficient testing
resources,  but a vendor  does have  some choice  over which  features those
are.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email