Robert Gray wrote:
On 8/05/2006 8:26 a.m., Steve Phillips wrote:
Then why on earth wouldn't you employ a firewall to protect your fridge/car brakes while allowing access to other parts of your network that you DO want to communicate to the outside world directly ?
Exactly.
You'd do more than just a firewall, you'd want some of authentication device as well as a system to integrate control over a range of devices, hence the use of RFC1918 would be perfectly acceptable for the fridge, car brakes and so forth.
In this way most would be happy with a single (maybe two but probably not) real IPv4 address
I'm glad to see you've migrated from RFC1914 addresses (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh) for the purposes of this discussion. Still, I'm a little puzzled why a single IPv4 address (with lots of NAT behind it) is really any different from a single IPv6 prefix with lots of bits on the right hand side.