Re: [Netrqmts] IETF 105 Minutes

Right. Kinda unavoidable in that case. But lets ignore IPv4.
The question really is whether we should going forward expect all
network connected devices to have a firewall themselves, and if so,
what, and if not, then what should the network in front of them do.
Thats at least the IETF stds. relevant conversion of my ask.

McAffee on this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Grillbot-Automatic-Cleaning-Carrying-Accessories/dp/B01HJCQ3D4/ref=asc_df_B01HJCQ3D4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=167125192708&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7572155483155878630&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032151&hvtargid=pla-340511541004&psc=1

;-))

Someone should do a web-page/blog on "worst IoT ideas".

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 02:27:30PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> On 2019-07-30 6:08 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
> >      > all those users not working at the network level. I also think that
> >      > folks who want to test if their applications work well and invested
> >      > into ICE/STUN and other firewall traversal mechanisms (like RTCweb and
> >      > other app groups), would maybe like to have something more reflective
> >      > of relevant end-user access (with firewall).
> > 
> > A $22 home router fixes that problem.
> 
> Actually, I realized in the shower this morning, that the ietf-nat64 network
> provides all the "security" of a home router, in that TCP SYN packets leave,
> but can never enter.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Netrqmts mailing list
> Netrqmts@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netrqmts

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de