[96943] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris L. Morrow)
Tue May 29 16:56:34 2007
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:33:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to: <5210.1180460568@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 29 May 2007 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -0000, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor
> > > 2) solve your favorite fib/rib/cam/convergence limit,
> > > nor 3) make the infrastructure inherently either
> > > easier to operate or more secure.
>
> > but ipv6 is more secure, yes? :) (no it is not)
>
> Does the relative security of IVp4 and IPv6 *really* matter on the same Internet
> that has Vint Cerf's 140 million pwned machines on it?
was the ":)" not enough: "I'm joking" ??
>
> Just askin', ya know?
some people do think that it does... they would be wrong, but they don't
know that.
