Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 03:24:37 EDT

  • Next message: Adrian Chadd: "Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)"

    On 2-okt-2007, at 17:35, Daniel Senie wrote:

    > So I'm sure you've explained to the firewall vendors they should be
    > selling proxy boxes instead, and they've listened to you. Sorry the
    > market has dictated solutions you don't like. Time to move on, and
    > stop fighting a battle that's been lost.

    The type of firewalling you talk about only happens in less than 1%
    of the sites connected to the internet. As a rule, these firewalls
    break lots of legitimate stuff such as ECN, the window scale option,
    path MTU discovery, etc, etc. The people who use them are welcome to
    these problems; it would be ridiculous for the IETF to work around
    this intentional breakage.

    As I said before, if you want to meddle in the middle, do it right
    and say you don't support this stuff rather than play coy during the
    setup phase and break sessions once they're established and start
    using the newer features. (Although I wouldn't exactly call RFCs 1191
    (1990) or 1323 (1992) "new".)


  • Next message: Adrian Chadd: "Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD