[170052] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hale)
Sun Mar 23 20:26:34 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAFy81rnbZTHws9W_FO1PmQRjVB-L=6W1QHXBVQdW+OeJ+y-y9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:24:24 -0700
From: Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@gmail.com>
To: Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
"I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever."
It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue
that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of companies
are facing.
Calling it FUD is completely wrong because it *is* a legitimate
security issue for most businesses. Sure, you've got the few who have
been able to properly plan for and secure their networks against the
increased attack surface of IPv6, but again...most companies haven't.
Slinging false proclamations of FUD is as harmful as FUD itself.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014 6:21 PM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster@mykolab.com> wrote:
>> Says you.
>
> And many others. My comments were actually reiterating what I commonly see
> presented today.
>
>> On the other hand, there are beaucoup enterprise networks unwilling to
>> consider to moving to v6 until there are management, control,
>> administrative, and security issues addressed.
>
> Whereas there are other enterprise networks, including mine, who are
> actively deploying IPv6 and have been for a number of years now. So unless
> you can come up with something truly novel that we haven't already dealt
> with, I'll stick by my use of FUD.
>
>> You can continue to deride our issues, and make derisive comments
>> until your heart's content, but it does not change reality.
>
> I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
