[139300] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Fri Apr 1 21:27:53 2011
From: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith@adhost.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, GP Wooden <graham@g-rock.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 01:26:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <58DA218F-4F30-4AFB-B42B-73040501E887@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I thought iced-over fiber was a little bit like muffler-bearings. Great
excuse if they buy it.
Mike
On 4/1/11 6:07 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>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
>> ----- 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
>
>
