Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up

Paul Ferguson <> Mon, 29 January 1996 19:27 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01702; 29 Jan 96 14:27 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01697; 29 Jan 96 14:27 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13619; 29 Jan 96 14:27 EST
Received: from ([]) by (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id EAA16312 for <>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:49:43 +1100
Received: from pferguso-pc ( []) by (8.6.10/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with SMTP id JAA15611; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:47:11 -0800
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:48:00 -0500
To: Robert Elz <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Ferguson <>
Subject: Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
Cc: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <>,,,,

At 02:19 AM 1/30/96 +1100, Robert Elz wrote:

>You're expecting me to obtain one of those things for my system
>at home?   And assuming that password type capable access
>protection is the only kind of protection I care about.

Well, not exactly. I was thinking along the lines of something a little
larger than 'home' access.  :-)

>Lets be a little reasonable please - access filters aren't
>dead yet (I would like to see them vanish, and I would hope that
>one day that might happen, today isn't that day).
>I will believe this has happened when cisco no longer support
>packet filtering in their routers.

My point was that filtering on source addresses is not exactly the
most secure method of access control.

- paul