On 26/05/2013 02:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
In article <7cd17be8-d455-4db8-b8d0-ccc757db5...@googlegroups.com>,
John Ladasky <john_lada...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:30:19 AM UTC-7, Roy Smith wrote:
From my phone, I
can call any other phone anywhere in the world. But I can't talk
directly to the file server in my neighbor's house across the street?
Hmmm... I've been an advocate of IPv6, but... now you've got me thinking of
what Iran's new cadre of hackers might do with it! :^)
You (like many people) are confusing universal addressability with
universal connectivity. The converse of that is people confusing NAT
with security.
Of course not every IPv6 endpoint will be able to talk to every other
IPv6 endpoint, even if the both have globally unique addresses. But,
the access controls will be implemented in firewalls with appropriately
coded security policies. Not as an accident of being behind a NAT box.
To be more specific: The control of who can talk to whom is in the
hands of the admins of the two endpoints and the nodes in between,
rather than being arbitrarily in the hands of the technology. So I
would be able to talk to the file server across the street, but only
IF its admin lets me.
ChrisA
By such means as leaving the top level admin password set to the factory
default? :)
--
If you're using GoogleCrap™ please read this
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython.
Mark Lawrence
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
