[139306] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Fri Apr 1 21:58:17 2011
In-Reply-To: <8527CE4A-FD55-4963-BCA8-36865C47B2FA@delong.com>
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 21:57:17 -0400
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Which? African or European Swallows?
>=20
> (Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-)
So the RFC needed more text in it's Security Considerations section, too...
>=20
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Chad Dailey wrote:
>=20
>> Swallows have MTU issues.
>>=20
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>=20
>> >
>> > On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. S=
o if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or t=
unneling?
>> >>
>> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was disappointed in this RFC -- Section 3.1 didn't include the proper=
discussion of the difference between African and European avian carriers, a=
nd we know what happens if that question is asked at the wrong time.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I th=
ink in general, swallows
>> provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
