• The user is logged on as a local administrator
• The user, or some code the user runs, enables IP routing

By default, all forms of IP routing (including NIC bridging) are disabled. Only local administrators (or group policy) can enable them. So the risk, actually, is minimal.

If you have a stroll through group policy, you'll discover this setting: "Prohibit installation and configuration of Network Bridge on your DNS domain network" (more here, here). This setting allows you turn a computer into a router that bridges two networks. The bridging works only when one of the interfaces is in the same DNS namespace it was in when the bridge setting was enabled, and it works only when the Windows firewall is disabled on both interfaces (never a good idea). Additionally, regardless of the group policy setting, the function doesn’t even appear as an option when the user is logged in as a non-admin. The group policy setting simply removes the option from people who are local admins of their computers. So here's a way you can remove the ability even for local admins to enable routing.

However, let me admit that I wish we did have a way to implement your request, but for an entirely different reason: IP address preservation. Consider what happens when I'm on my own corpnet in my office. I put my laptop in its dock, which is connected to the Ethernet. I never bother disabling my wireless (I'm lazy). So whenever I'm in my office I'm taking up two IP addresses: one on the Ethernet and one on the wireless. Such wasteful profligacy, I know! (Note this isn’t a problem for any Bluetooth adapter, which always uses APIPA in its default configuration; I can’t imagine a scenario where you’d want Bluetooth to use DHCP.)

If you agree with me that this is something we should address post Windows 7, not for "security" reasons but as a good general networking practice of being conservative with address allocation, please speak up. Now's the time for your input.

Finding Zune-Fi: Ina Fried of News.com wanders the polite streets of San Francisco in search of Zune connections over Wi-Fi. She finds a few, and has a good experience. One cafe owner sees the ease with which she can stream music and calls it cool. She can't connect at the long-running Google-sponsored free Wi-Fi at Union Square, however, which means the Wi-Fi likely has an accept button that must be pressed. Surely Microsoft could insert a little technology that would allow a browser-free acceptance of terms? Probably involves Yet Another Protocol: the Wi-Fi Terms Browser-Free Presentation Protocol (WTBFPP).

Kodak adds interesting Wi-Fi enabled all-in-one: The new Kodak ESP 9 is a multi-function printer (fax, scan, print, copy) that connects to a network via Wi-Fi or Ethernet. The $300 device spits out 30 pages per minutes in color, 32 ppm in black only. Kodak claims that the model line to which the ESP belongs uses ink in a vastly more efficient manner than the "average of comparable consumer inkjet printers."

What’s really set me off this morning is the back and forth on the flight time. I know that there are many things that can cause a flight delay, but to move the departure time, in both directions, four times within one hour, how is that possible? I can only imagine the reaction of ScienceLogic customers if we announced the release date for the next version of the product and then proceeded to change it four times that week. There really isn’t another business in the world, other than the airlines, that could get away with this.

Assuming I eventually get to Interop NY, I will be on the look out for vendors that are working on ways to send me to my next meeting over Gigabit Ethernet!

New life for dead Tempe network? Another firm has expressed interest in buying the pennies on the dollar assets that remain of the former Kite Networks installation in Tempe from the firm that financed the venture as long as they can negotiate a new, more favorable deal with the city for mounting and removal rights. CTC, Inc., which the East Valley Tribune reports runs networks in the Kansas City, Mo., area, thinks there's an opportunity. The article notes that reception problems were due in part to the prevalence of stucco in Tempe, common in the southwest. Stucco walls layer plaster or other materials on a wire mesh for strength that turns a house into a bit of an accidental Faraday cage, partially shielding the home from electromagnetic radiation. (Could I go so far to say that Tempe's network could be a phoenix? Ouch.)

Wake up, you darn computer: Intel's new Remote Wake motherboards won't work with Wi-Fi, it's important to note. The feature, announced today, will let an incoming VoIP call (the articles all say "phone call over the Internet") to wake a computer, as long as the call comes from a particular source. Of course, the standard SIP protocol for VoIP doesn't have the kind of security and integrity that would allow this; Intel has to overcome the problem with network address translation that renders most computer unreachable from outside the local network without a separate service like GoToMyPC or LogMeIn; and it will only work for computers connected via Ethernet to a local network, because Wi-Fi is off when a computer sleeps, while Ethernet can remain lightly active. I don't have the protocol details yet, but there's long been a Wake on LAN protocol that required support in a router, operating system, and Ethernet card; Intel may be leveraging this.

Oddly, Nikon also announced the $500 P6000 with a built-in GPS receiver, 13.5 MP sensor, 4x zoom, and effective 6400 ISO--and a built-in Ethernet jack. Which is a very weird choice. I know Wi-Fi adds cost and reduces battery life-span, but I would think that GPS plus Wi-Fi would allow assisted GPS for faster coordinated lookups (if the Wi-Fi tapped into Skyhook's system and cached some location information), as well as offering automated uploads, and Wi-Fi positioning when GPS signals couldn't be reached.

Seems like a missed ship here.

By now you have probably heard that Brocade is making a big push from storage networking switches into Ethernet switches by buying Foundry Networks for almost 3 billion in cash.  Actually the deal is valued at about 2.8 billion.  However, Foundry has about 800 million or so in cash and liquid assets.  So taking that into account, the deal is for about 2 billion really, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Still that is quite a number when you consider that $18.50 of the $19.25 price per share is in cash.  That works out to about 2.7 billion.  Considering Brocade only had about 700 to 800 million in cash itself, that means someone is lending them about a billion and half.  Again according the Mercury News, it is Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. This is a 41% premium over Foundry's closing price.  Pretty sweet!

The real question is what does Brocade do with this.  With all of that debt, do they have what it takes to go on and take on Cisco now?  The highways and byways of Silicon Valley are littered with companies that have tried to take Cisco out of this market.  What about the 7 dwarfs who currently compete in this market.  Companies like HP ProCurve, Extreme Networks, Nortel, Enterasys, Alcatel-Lucent and Force 10 are not small little companies. These are companies with 100's of millions, if not billions of dollars of market cap themselves.  They are not going to roll over and die here. Will this set off a round of consolidation for these players to bulk up in order to compete in this brave new world of networking? I think so. What about next gen secure switches like ConSentry, Nevis and Napera? Or some of the other smaller switch vendors like D-link?  Do they view this a a good opportunity to get bought by one of the giants or do they think they can run through the legs of these giants?  I don't know but it is going to be a high barrier of entry into this market.

Ultimately though I don't think Cisco will lose its place of dominance very easily. Brocade will be another competitor among the other switch vendors fighting over 25% of the market. But it sure will be interesting in the switch market for a while.

By now you have probably heard that Brocade is making a big push from storage networking switches into Ethernet switches by buying Foundry Networks for almost 3 billion in cash.  Actually the deal is valued at about 2.8 billion.  However, Foundry has about 800 million or so in cash and liquid assets.  So taking that into account, the deal is for about 2 billion really, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Still that is quite a number when you consider that $18.50 of the $19.25 price per share is in cash.  That works out to about 2.7 billion.  Considering Brocade only had about 700 to 800 million in cash itself, that means someone is lending them about a billion and half.  Again according the Mercury News, it is Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. This is a 41% premium over Foundry's closing price.  Pretty sweet!

The real question is what does Brocade do with this.  With all of that debt, do they have what it takes to go on and take on Cisco now?  The highways and byways of Silicon Valley are littered with companies that have tried to take Cisco out of this market.  What about the 7 dwarfs who currently compete in this market.  Companies like HP ProCurve, Extreme Networks, Nortel, Enterasys, Alcatel-Lucent and Force 10 are not small little companies. These are companies with 100's of millions, if not billions of dollars of market cap themselves.  They are not going to roll over and die here. Will this set off a round of consolidation for these players to bulk up in order to compete in this brave new world of networking? I think so. What about next gen secure switches like ConSentry, Nevis and Napera? Or some of the other smaller switch vendors like D-link?  Do they view this a a good opportunity to get bought by one of the giants or do they think they can run through the legs of these giants?  I don't know but it is going to be a high barrier of entry into this market.

Ultimately though I don't think Cisco will lose its place of dominance very easily. Brocade will be another competitor among the other switch vendors fighting over 25% of the market. But it sure will be interesting in the switch market for a while.