[139299] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Apr 1 21:09:16 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1Q5fOG-0003QY-AH@s0.nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:07:09 -0700
To: GP Wooden <graham@g-rock.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss.
Owen
On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote:
> I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...=20
>=20
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am
> Subject: v6 Avian Carriers?
> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
>=20
> Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a
> recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner?
>=20
> I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. ;)
>=20
> Scott
>=20
>=20
> On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
>> I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. =
So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss =
or tunneling?
>>=20
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
>>=20
>>=20
>> Marc
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
