nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Michael Crapse <michael () wi-fiber io>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:48:31 -0700
The lightbulb in this scenario has a severe security issue, and thus allows total control of any windows computer on the network because it's set to a private/trusted network. Also note, the lightbulb is publicly addressable and has a 8MHz processor incapable of firewalling itself.. On 28 December 2017 at 20:41, Chuck Church <chuckchurch () gmail com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Ricky Beam Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 9:55 PM To: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 tooEvery scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networkswith multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set them up, and there's little technical need for it. I couldn't agree more. We're spending so much time with new RFCs to handle all these prefix delegation ways in order to accommodate 'power users' who are used to chaining one NATing IPv4 router off of another one and having it sort of work. If we'd just put a stake in the ground and say residences can have one router and bridge everything below that we'd be further ahead. I just can't see 99.999% of users being interested in subnetting their homes and writing firewall rules so their light bulbs can't talking to their DVRs. Chuck
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too, (continued)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Ricky Beam (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Keith Medcalf (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Tony Wicks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Chuck Church (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Michael Crapse (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too John Lightfoot (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 29)
- Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too) Octavio Alvarez (Dec 28)
- Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Dec 28)
- Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too) Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Dec 28)