[96961] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald Stahl)
Tue May 29 19:32:47 2007
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
To: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0705291832290.11314@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>>> 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.
There is something to be said for not being able to blindly spew worm
traffic and still expect to get a sensible hit ratio as with IPv4.
-Don
