[168677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38.info, RELATING: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dobbins, Roland)
Mon Feb 3 03:32:33 2014
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:32:15 +0000
In-Reply-To: <EB29803C-C3EF-4915-B86D-3CCE6E4D93C4@deman.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Michael DeMan <nanog@deman.com> wrote:
> I meant mostly that with IPv6 NAT goes away,
I don't know if this is true or not - and even if it is true, it's going to=
be a long, long time before the IPv4 Internet goes away (like, maybe, pret=
ty much forever, heh).
> An NTPv5 solution that could be done with NTP services already, and would=
be more of a 'best practices of how this shit starts up and what it can do=
' and educating vendors to have reasonable behavior in the first place?
Yes, but that's many years away, and doesn't address legacy issues.
> And an NTPv6 solution/RFC/guideline that was similar, could help?
Again, many years away, and doesn't address legacy issues.
> I disagree that 'filtering' or 'blocking' any kind of IPv4 or IPv6 protoc=
ol to 'protect the end user' is the wrong way to go when compared to just h=
aving things work in a secure manner.
Yes, but since the latter part of this statement is unattainable in the for=
eseeable future, the idea is actually to protect *the rest of the Internet*=
from misconfigured CPE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
-- John Milton
