[128149] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Eisenberg)
Sun Jul 25 12:19:11 2010
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:19:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1280043147.28305.515.camel@karl>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> If an expert stood up in court and said "the chances that this
> fingerprint is the defendant's are a million to one", and the
> prosecutor then said "Aha! So you admit it's *possible*!" we would
> rightly scorn the prosecutor for being an innumerate nincompoop. Yet
> here we are paying serious heed to the idea that a ULA prefix conflict
> is a real business risk.
Yes, but if this prosecutor does this a million times, he's bound to be rig=
ht at least once.
Yes, a good businessperson takes risks. They also do everything possible t=
o mitigate those risks, such as background checks on employees, lightning r=
ods and grounding systems and insurance on the electronics in the building,=
buy generators and fuel contracts or source an emergency workplace. Yes, =
a crazy employee may get through a background check, but if the question is=
the presence of an attempt and prevention, then what is the risk mitigatio=
n for ULA?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
