I said that it seems to have been the original marketing pitch, not that it was a good one or that it was going to add security.
That was when almost all of us (myself included) were going through our 'cryptography makes everything secure phase'. On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-10-13 12:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > The original idea seems to have been that IPSEC would be a big enough > > incentive to upgrade. > > I've been keeping out of this conversation because I have other things to > do, > like working on effective technologies for v4/v6 coexistence, but I have > to protest at this version of the "IPv6 is more secure" myth. I don't > think anybody ever advanced this as a serious technical incentive. > > What was always pointed out is that IPv6 use of IPsec doesn't have to > deal with NAT traversal, which was an issue for IPv4 use of IPsec, > until RFC 3948 came along in 2005. Since then, even the weak form of > the "more secure" myth has been indefensible. > > I am of course discounting bogus marketing arguments. > > Brian > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
