[170040] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Sun Mar 23 17:48:26 2014
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:45:50 -0700
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFy81rk7+DVi_WRR9rrpFqz7pco_-bkrc6xVBy2uLcNLCuL6xg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:27:16PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster@mykolab.com> wrote:
> > Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
> > are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
> > considering it.
>
> And that is pure FUD. The sorts of security risks with IPv6 are mostly in
> the same sorts of categories as those with IPv4 and have appropriate
> mitigations available. Moreover, by not enabling and controlling IPv6 on
> their networks, an operator is actually markedly more vulnerable to IPv6
> attacks, not less.
>
> Scott
Yo, Tim/Scott. Seems you have not been keeping up.
http://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DREN-6-Slo-IPv6Summit-2011.pdf
points out several unique problems w/ IPv6 and in deployments where
there are ZERO IPv4 equivalents. Ferg is paranoid, but it doesn;t
mean they are not out to get him/IPv6.
/bill
