Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

In message <6.2.3.4.2.20050906181309.07350830@mail.amaranth.net>, Daniel Senie 
writes:
>At 06:00 PM 9/6/2005, you wrote:
>> >> The IETF has been doing extensive work on NAT traversal, have a look
>> >> and see if you can reuse some existing mechanism.
>>
>> > All mechanisms used with the possible exception of an additional SNMP
>> > table will be re-used from existing IETF work (mostly SSH with help
>> > from the fact that it's based on TCP).
>>
>>Perhaps then it's time we consider mandating a "NAT-Traversal" section to
>>standards track documents much like IANA and Security considerations have
>>become common place to this day. Anything that's not covered by the BEHAVE
>>work already done should be covered there, as the IETF seems to have indeed
>>accepted the proliferation and widespread acceptance of NAT functionality.
>
>Actually, a "Firewall Considerations" section would make sense. That 
>section might indeed be a good place to discuss NAT issues, if any, 
>but firewall interactions with protocols exist in many cases where 
>NAT is in use. Though many have expressed their hope that NAT does 
>not persist in the IPv6 world, there should be no doubt in anyone's 
>mind that firewalls will be with us permanently. 
>

Indeed.  In Hal Burch's dissertation, he concluded that 

	at least 93% of hosts attached to the Internet are behind
	a ltering device of some type. Because this excludes hosts
	behind rewalls that block all incoming connection attempts,
	the true percentage is even higher than 93%. Clearly,
	rewalls are an important consideration when designing
	protocols and developing models for the Internet.

More of his measurements concluded that at least 56% of hosts are
behind a firewall that blocks by default.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf