[146264] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: where was my white knight....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Tue Nov 8 13:16:52 2011
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:14:59 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Mike Leber <mleber@he.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EB96E60.9090707@he.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
that was/is kindof orthoginal to the question... would the sidr plan
for routing security have been a help in this event? nice to know
unsecured IPv6 took some of the load when the unsecured IPv4 path
failed.
the answer seems to be NO, it would not have helped and would have actually
contributed to network instability with large numbers of validation requests
sent to the sidr/ca nodes...
/bill
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:01:04AM -0800, Mike Leber wrote:
>
> We saw an increase in IPv6 traffic which correlated time wise with the
> onset of this IPv4 incident.
>
> Happy eyeballs in action, automatically shifting what it could.
>
> Mike.
>
> On 11/8/11 2:56 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >how would a sidr-enabled routing infrastructure have fared in yesterdays
> >routing circus?
> >
> >/bill
> >
