RE: Free NAT

["Ryan Russell" <Ryan.Russell () sybase com>]

> > From: Brock, Todd A [mailto:TB120060 () exchange DAYTONOH NCR com]
> >
> >
> > Robert,
> > I think you are touching on something that I have suspected
> > for some time
> > now.  Specifically that it is not a long term workable solution that
> > requires every single "host" have it's own globally unique IP address.
> > In the not to distant future our breaker panels, security systems, air
> > conditioners, toasters, etc. (ad vomiteum) will, all and every one, be
> > "network accessible".  I have thought for a while that  a scheme that
> > requires every single item that might need network
> > connectivity to have a
> > unique global address is and will continue to be unworkable.
>
> I don't beleive that this was ever the intention.  How many people want or
> need the whole world to be able to connect to and control their toaster?  I
> personally beleive that NAT and similar methods will not fade after (or are
> intended to be replaced by) the introduction of IPv6.

Not me.  The mention of circuit breakers makes me shudder.  I can just
imagine someone flooding the $0.25 IP implementation with packets
in such a way as to cause the breakers to open and close repeatedly,
causing a fire.  I wouldn't want to subject myself to a denial-of-house
attack.

                         Ryan

P.S. Do you think I'll get into trouble when I want to firewall IP on
the AC lines coming into my house?  I could see PG&E wanting
to mandate IP access to my meter & breaker box. :)