Re: [Netrqmts] IETF 105 Minutes

[Alessandro Amirante <[e-mail]>]

Il 31/07/19 00:58, Toerless Eckert ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 06:42:24PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>      >> A $22 home router fixes that problem.
>>
>>      > Sure, but why would i have to bring my own WiFi<->WiFi home router to
>>      > the IETF to give me that function for the company notebook.
>>
>> Laptops are regularly attacked at the Coffee Shop from BEHIND the NAT44
>> "firewall".  No firewall the IETF provides will solve that.
> 
> That IMHO today an untypical and recgonizeable bad hotspot setup.
> 
>> As your company IT guy why they gave you an insecure laptop for travel.
>> So seriously, go ask them.  NOT AN IETF PROBLEM.
> 
> Providing access that is less secured than what users can normally
> expect at work/hotspots/home is an explicit IETF choice, and i am
> questioning why people would think its a good idea to only provide that
> choice.
> 
>> Better yet, bring your company IT guy to IETF, so that they learn what's it
>> like to be connected to the actual Internet. As you say, most have never been online.
> 
> Nobody connects endpoint to the actual Internet without firewalls in between.

This can be true for IPv4. It isn't for IPv6. I've had a NAT-ted v4 
address and a public v6 address for quite some time, both at home and at 
the office.

A.

> Yes, a good travel notebook should have that firewall built-in. Many may
> be good. Windows probably a lot better than Linux. But its a kind of
> strange policy to provide such an uncommon type of access without
> communicating it clearly to the whole community and understanding their
> preferences.
> 
>>      > I guess the best thing i could think of would be to have a BCP RFC for
>>      > how hotels should build out their network infrastructure to be best
>>      > prepared for conferences/workshops etc. This could easily proliferate
>>
>> It's a great idea, and I sure wish it would occur.
>>
>> To be effective, they hotel chains would need to solicit this document, and
>> pay a significant figure for the consulting.  Otherwise, they will ignore it.
> 
> If a lot of conferences would refer to it, the hotels would not ignore
> it. Otherwise we might worst case support the business model of useless
> consultants reading our doc, and recommending its points for a lot of
> money to hotels.
> 
> But yes, its work, so the question is whether there is enough critical
> mass to write it.
> 
>> capport WG has been struggling for attention of the same types.
> 
> I think thats a fundamentally different problem space.
> 
> To automate the captive portal problem, you need to be able to tie every
> IoT devices authenticatication to some poor human, who forcefully has to absorb the
> advertisement of the portal and bear legal responsiblity requested by
> the portal. So pretty much you need a mobile phone app and cloud broker
> where iot device manufacturer can hire middle school kids that will then
> continuously watch advertisement clips from those portal operators and
> whose parents will pay the bail when the kid has to go to jail for
> something the IoT device did do wrong.
> 
> Or else the business model of the captive portal has to change.
> 
> Cheers
>      toerless
>>
>> -- 
>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
>> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>>
> 
> 
> 
>> -- 
>> Netrqmts mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netrqmts
> 
> 

-- 
Ing. Alessandro Amirante, Ph.D.

Meetecho S.r.l.
www.meetecho.com

Via Riviera di Chiaia 124
80122 Napoli, Italy

Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]