At 08:46 PM 9/21/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:

Is the Nanog confernce network really insecure for its purpose? ... I don't see much of a need to rely on a volunteer network operator to provide what I think is the appropriate level of security for my communications.

exactly. seems like the same situation as we have for walk-by hot-spot wireless nets. is anyone suggesting that they should have some special, local privacy mechanisms, rather than each user relying on providing their own, end-to-end mechanisms?

ICANN had armed guards at its meeting to keep the rif-raff out.

In fact there was a public disclosure of a trivial circumvention of that mechanism. It was never clear what actual benefit the guards were supposed to provide, either. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850