[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Wes Hardaker: opportunistic encryption deployment problems
> At some point one has to just give up and tell folks to get it
> together and control there own resources.
OK, in my town high speed Internet is only available from one monopoly
supplier, AT&T broadband. Absent an act of Congress to force AT&T to
run their net the way you think they should, my only option is to start
digging up the city streets myself with a back hoe.
My situation is not unusual, it is the norm and will continue to be
the norm unless someone works out how to make DSL work in practice.
The Web grew because it adapted to the network configuration as it
was and not how the designers thought it should be. If you can't cope
with reality then that is your design problem and NOT someone else's
deployment problem.
> On the subject of NAT: If your NAT on the net your NOT on the net.
> That's what I personally say at least.
Without NAT the Internet would be dead of IP address exhaustion. To start
making pejorative comments about a scheme that is the main means of
conserving a scarce resource is unhelpful to say the least.
Equally there are many good reasons to conceal an IP address for security
purposes. I use NAT at my house, I don't want the structure of the internal
net to be revealled to the outside world. I want to know that there the only
servers in the network are the ones that I have set aside for that purpose
and maintain accordingly. I don't want to be spending my time applying the
latest inane patches to every machine.
Schemes that can't cope with NAT should be outlawed until IPv6 is deployable
and deployed.
Somehow the 'let them eat cake' attitude of the net-affluent reminds me of
a guy down in Washington.
Phill
Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227
Phillip