Subject: RE: [midcom] Re: Topology, pinholes and policy roles (was RE: [mi dcom] policy & duration)

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:57:01 -0700

Melinda,

would you consider having someone from a firewall perspective as a co-chair
in this WG? No matter how many emails people write describing scenarios,
network topologies, etc.. It seems we are not getting through. 

other comments inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:31 AM
> To: Andrew Molitor; [email-masked]
> Subject: [midcom] Re: Topology, pinholes and policy roles (was RE:
> [midcom] policy & duration)
> 
> 
> At 11:21 AM 8/14/01 -0500, Andrew Molitor wrote:
> >        Now I, being part of 'anything at all' can send UDP 
> traffic to
> >your NFS server. No, validating addresses at the interfaces 
> won't work,
> >because the packets are actually going the right way. Sure, you could
> >stick specific rules in to protect your NFS server, and 
> everything else.
> 
> Anybody who relies on a firewall to protect a particular application -
> any particular application - deserves what they get.

huh? Do you speak on behalf of Cisco Systems on this list? Are you including
Cisco Systems Firewall owners on your statement? 

> 
> In the meantime, I hope that people who do have a particular view
> of how this all should work are scribbling (or typing) away,
> preparing short documents that they'd like to champion when the
> time comes.

More docs? There was already enough emails on this list with deployment
scenarios to fill any mailbox. 

-RP

> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>