4 ms·

I'd assume IoT concerns are about the number of devices rather than bandwidth, which probably translates to "switch everyone over to IPv6 already".

• dsr_ 11y ago
  Both number of devices and bandwidth could be conserved if we had a standard protocol for these things to talk to a local hub that would (a) proxy interactions with the outside, (b) enforce privacy rules and (c) handle management overhead. As it is now, a house can easily find itself with three brands of "smart" light bulbs, a thermostat, a power meter, six video systems and a camera: all of them demanding their own IP address and exposing varying levels of private information. I expect there are six standards for such hubs already. Insert XKCD here...
  • voltagex_ 11y ago
    There is no incentive for any kind of product that acts as a filter or proxy. There is little demand, outside of a few Kickstarters. You and I might move towards egress filtering but I suspect most people won't.
  • 7952 11y ago
    I am not sure that is is a good idea to put such devices in a special class of their own. It risks giving devices permissions and trust that they don't actually deserve. Better to treat them as an internet server and use existing procotols (OAuth, CORS, TLS, WebSockets etc.). As far as I know all those protocols work perfectly well on a local network behind a NAT. More importantly browsers already have well understood restrictions to prevent XSS built in.