[126059] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Thu Apr 29 11:23:46 2010
In-Reply-To: <6109E1B3-E845-4111-966A-0613338D6719@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:22:47 -0700
From: Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> Here's an exercise. =A0Wipe a PC. =A0Put it on that cable modem with no =
firewall. =A0Install XP on it. =A0See if you can get any service packs inst=
alled before the box is infected.
> 1. =A0 =A0 =A0Yes, I can. =A0I simply didn't put an IPv4 address on it. ;=
-)
> 2. =A0 =A0 =A0I wouldn't hold XP up as the gold standard of hosts here.
One of my coworkers was IPv6ing his home network. He had to turn off
the Windows firewall on the machine with the IPv6 tunnel for a couple
of minutes to install some stubborn software. Then he had to reimage
the box because it was pwned, and he's pretty sure that the infection
came in over the IPv6 tunnel, not the hardware-firewalled IPv4.
--=20
----
Thanks; Bill
Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so =
far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
