Matthew Kaufman wrote:

>End-to-end requires that people writing the software at the end learn about
>buffer overruns (and other data-driven access violations) or program using
>tools that prevent such things. It is otherwise an excellent idea.
>
>
>
There is supposedly some magic going into this in the next "Service
Pack" of a mentioned
major exploding Pinto. Not sure if it?s just flipping the joke of
firewall on by default or something
more comprehensive/destructive like non-executable stack. Or a
completely new invention like
bug free code :-)

>Unfortunately, the day that someone decided their poorly-designed machine
>and operating system would be safer sitting behind a "firewall" pretty much
>marked the end of universal end-to-end connectivity, and I don't see it
>coming back for a long long time. Probably not on this Internet. IPv6 or
>not.
>
>
Last I checked most "firewall"s don?t make these machines safe, it might
make them safer,
so only two out of three malwares hit them. Does not really help too much.

>Combine that with ISP pricing models (helped by registry policy) that
>encourage <=1 IP address per household, and the subsequent boom in NAT
>boxes, and the fate is probably sealed.
>
>
>
Here I?ve observed opposite trend, most ISP?s are getting rid of NATting
because it?s failure
prone and expensive to implement and keep running.

Pete