ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Time to move beyond the 32 bit Internet.

2014-07-03 03:50:50
On 07/01/2014 01:55 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

That is a place I have well and truly scratched my head regarding 
the firewall discussion in the IETF. There’s a set of people, 
including me, that think that firewalls have a certain levee of 
utility and in any event are a business requirement.

FWIW, I'm in this camp.



Where my head tips is this. I see three kinds of traffic across 
that divide. One is sessions originated from the network - I sent 
something to Netflix, Facebook, or whoever, and it replied. The 
vast majority of residential traffic, I would guess, falls in that
 category, and apart from electric mail and traffic to business 
services to customers, I would guess that the vast majority of 
legitimate enterprise traffic does as well. A second is sessions 
originated from outside the network to services that the network 
intends to offer - web access to www.example.com, incoming SMTP, my
daughter’s surveillance service (which is a web access), and so on.
The third is “everything else” - traffic that wasn’t invited and
has no application, and perhaps no host, to respond to it.

The first works in almost any case - a firewall that prevents you 
from running an application you want to run isn’t going to last 
very long. The second is trivially allowed for by a firewall rule 
or PCP/UPnP exchange, and if there is an application (set-top box 
or whatever) in the home that wants to allow for such a service,
it can fire off the request. The third - what is the argument for 
letting that into my home or enterprise network?

Could you provide an example of this "third" traffic?



And I tend to think that the conversation breaks down at that 
point. Everyone agrees on the first and second. When someone says 
“I want to block the third”, the response is “but I want to allow 
the second” without acknowledging or commenting on the third. And
I just find myself shaking my head in disbelief. Wouldn’t it be
nice of both speakers in the conversation would address the same 
subject?

I guess the fos arguing "but I want to allow the second" really mean
"I want to allow the second with no manual configuration or
upnp-kind-of-thing"?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando(_at_)gont(_dot_)com(_dot_)ar || 
fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1