[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ports in the clear...
Ran,
> Your unstated reason is that it relates to how the Ipsilon product works
> and that won't persuade me either.
Foo. I'm fairly principled; my discomfort with hiding the port numbers
predates Ipsilon. (But, you are right that this would also make some of our
stuff easier in operational networks.) [But, maybe you didn't mean this
statement to be for public consumption?]
> Nothing says that users must use encryption. If they choose to do so,
> then they ought not have their ports and ULP identifier in cleartext.
I guess i don't know any argument from first principles that says what should,
and what shouldn't, be in the clear (except that it's clear that people want
their telnet passwords and their payroll data, etc., to be encrypted). If,
for example, ports and ULP were in the IPng header (sort of like in XNS), then
one might not think of encrypting them (thinking of them as part of the
"address").
Greg
References: