[76852] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Sat Jan 1 10:57:02 2005
In-Reply-To: <02c601c4efbc$af4fa8e0$6401a8c0@stephen>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>,
"Rob Thomas" <robt@cymru.com>, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:56:01 -0500
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 31 Dec 2004, at 23:42, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> The thing about that is that, if IPv6 is identified as the channel,
> it's
> still quite possible to shut down IPv6 connectivity until you figure
> out how
> to fix things. After all, there's nothing significant out there yet
> on v6
> that can't be reached with v4...
That depends very much on what is being reached. Would it be reasonable
for a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net to start silently
blocking v6 datagrams on a whim?
If yes, then by similar logic, presumably it would be ok if
a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net also shut down their v4
connectivity for a few days, since there are other nameservers
available to serve the COM and NET zones?
You might say yes, but there are many who would disagree.
Joe
