[134700] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Chown)
Mon Jan 10 08:56:49 2011
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101071005580.31363@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:56:26 +0000
To: "Nanog Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7 Jan 2011, at 15:12, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>=20
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your
>>> borders. There's no legitimate reason someone should be
>>=20
>> Most networks do not do this today. Whether or not that is wise is
>> questionable, but I don't think those networks want NDP to be the
>> reason they choose to make this change.
>=20
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't blocking all traffic destined =
for your infrastructure at the borders also play havoc with PTMUD? =
Limiting the traffic allowed to just the necessary types would seem like =
a reasonable alternative.
Recommendations for PTMUD-friendly filtering are described in RFC 4890.
Tim=
