The IETF IPNG WG home page can be found at:
http://playground.sun.com/ipng
The decision regarding site-local was made during the San
Francisco IETF meeting and then later confirmed on the mailing lists
although there has been quite some debate over it all since then
Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Private port numbers? Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:41:25AM -0700
> Quoting Crist Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > Lars Higham wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6
Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out
in the open extremely easy to filter, while at the same time not
impacting any legitimate u
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
>
> I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
> use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out
> in the open extremely easy to filter, while at the s
Subject: Re: Private port numbers? Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:41:25AM -0700 Quoting
Crist Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Lars Higham wrote:
> >
> > It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6 administrative
> > scoping?
>
> That'
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Crist Clark wrote:
>
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> > Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
> >
> > I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
> > use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:40:30PM +, Christopher L. Morrow quacked:
>
> what about ports that start as 'private' and are eventually ubiquitously
> used on a public network? (Sean Donelan noted that 137->139 were
> originally intended to be used in private networks... and they became
> 'publi
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Private port numbers?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:40:30PM +, Christopher L. Morrow quacked:
>
> what about ports that start as 'private' and are eventually
> ubiquitously used on a public network? (Sean Donelan noted that
> 137->139 wer
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Crist Clark wrote:
>
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> > Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
> >
> > I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
> > use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping ou
Lars Higham wrote:
>
> It's a good idea, granted, but isn't this covered by IPv6 administrative
> scoping?
That's the network layer, not the transport layer. IPv6 scoping has the
potential to be very helpful for private addressing since it's fundamentally
built into the protocol, as opposed to
On woensdag, aug 13, 2003, at 21:38 Europe/Amsterdam, Crist Clark wrote:
Cool. So if you use private ports, you'll be totally protected from the
Internet nasties (and the Internet protected from your broken or
malicious
traffic) in the same way RFC1918 addressing does the exact same thing
now
at
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> It's not the same thing. RFC 1918 and martian addresses aren't supposed
> to be present on the internet, but aren't automatically harmful. Having
> services that are explicitly labeled for internal use be visible to the
> rest of the world is p
12 matches
Mail list logo
