[101467] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Jan 5 00:43:43 2008
To: James Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:04:24 CST."
<6eb799ab0801042104w452314caod8558f037aaf3894@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:42:50 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1199511770_11467P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:04:24 CST, James Hess said:
> Seems like an understatement. Ipv6 addressing doesn't merely make
> them more difficult,
> they make traditional propagation methods and attack techniques that rely
> on 'scanning' a network from outside impossible to execute.
I believe Steve Bellovin has already written extensively on this, and some
of the more plausible alternate non-scanning strategies for worm propagation.
I'm sure Steve has a pointer to the paper in question, which I've managed
to misplace in my senility... ;)
--==_Exmh_1199511770_11467P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHfxjacC3lWbTT17ARArsGAJ4nXxAzArbFrFhm4ZLcBN1CvOxengCfWFry
6dNIzjdQ4K8eKyAfO+uux0s=
=Dogp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1199511770_11467P--
