[124659] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Apr 3 13:40:12 2010
To: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT."
<l2i16720fe01004030506h7879759aoc20047903fb52756@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:39:08 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1270316348_4449P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
> For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
> especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
> yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How many people are *realistically* being hit by IPv6 DDoS right now?
(I saw a number in the last 2-3 days that 2-3% of spam is now being delivered
via SMTP-over-IPv6). You may not need that gear as much as you thought...
Did you tell your mitigation gear vendor 5 years ago that their next model
needed to have IPv6 support?
Given that currently most stuff is dual-stack, and IPv6 isn't totally
widespread, what are the effects of doing IPv6 DDoS mitigation by simply
turning off IPv6 on your upstream link and letting traffic fall back to IPv4
where you have mitigation gear?
--==_Exmh_1270316348_4449P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLt308cC3lWbTT17ARAqXYAKDvY3A3RIWb6Auv1BCvNmpjplzcHgCg6TkL
tfqOpxtSy7vocMEAT2ziw50=
=jMLS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1270316348_4449P--
