RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt & NAT security [2.2]

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

thanks Fred we are in synch.  thanks for clearing me up.  I get it now.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:06 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mark 
> Smith; Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt & NAT security [2.2]
> 
> On May 25, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > I believe end-to-end security will be the norm in the future and 
> > believe it to be a requirement for true end-to-end trust 
> model. But, I 
> > do believe the network must remain secure too.
> 
> yes and yes. The end system has to ensure that it is robust 
> to attacks. 
> The network needs to be able to prevent unauthorized use of its 
> resources. The network can also help with various kinds of attacks - 
> ddos being an obvious example, but ping sweeps and other things being 
> also detectable and mitigable in the network. So using the network to 
> detect and deal with things that an end system misses is reasonable.
> 
> Please don't understand what I said to mean that I don't 
> believe in an 
> end-to-end trust model. What I said was that I didn't think 
> that it was 
> the only thing that would be implemented. I very much believe that 
> there will be prophylactic services in the network for the 
> foreseeable 
> future, because there exist good network-related reasons for 
> that to be 
> true.
>