[96872] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Tue May 29 07:40:57 2007
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:41:22 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B06C95A1@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, May 29, 2007, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
> That's why I suggested that NANOG run some kind of IPv6 vendor showcase
> in which all the vendors would be running an interoperable IPv6 network.
> As many have pointed out, this is not just about routers since Cisco and
> Juniper have had IPv6 support for years and both are in use on
> production IPv6 networks in Asia. People need to see things like the
> Hexago gateways, Teredo servers, proxies, management consoles/tools, and
> so on. Even the easy stuff needs to be on display because if it can't be
> seen then people will not believe that it is easy.
From someone who hasn't looked into IPv6 customer deployments:
* So is DHCPv6 the "way to go" for deploying IPv6 range(s) to end-customers?
Considering the current models of L2TP over IP for broadband aggregation
and wholesaling where the customer device speaks PPPoX.
* Has anyone sat down and thought about the security implications for running
native IPv6 addresses on end-devices which, at the moment, don't have 'direct'
access to the internet (ie sitting behind a NAT.)
* Has anyone looked into the effects of oppertunistic IPSEC on stuff like
network IDSes?
k
Adrian
