From: Nelson Minar <nelson@santafe.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 18:00:11 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
In-Reply-To: <v02120d17ad296f1e1a73@[199.0.65.105]>
Message-ID: <199601230159.SAA00256@nelson.santafe.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) writes:
[interesting article about the future, which includes..]

>The reason we won't need LANs is because the only real difference between a
>LAN and the internet is a firewall for security, and the need for clients
>to speak Novell's TCP/IP-incompatible proprietary network protocol.  With
>internet-level encryption protocols like the IETF IPSEC standard, you won't
>even need a firewall anymore.  The only people who can establish a server
>session with *any* machine connected to the net will be those issuing the
>digital signatures authorized to access that machine, no matter where those
>people are physically. When that happens, networks will need to be as
>public as possible, which means, of course, TCP/IP, and not Netware.

I'm all for the end of ridiculous non-TCP/IP protocols, but does
anyone believe this point about encrypted IP traffic eliminating the
need for firewalls?

I guess I don't trust the ability for people to keep secrets secret.
Nothing like refusing to pass packets at all..