nanog mailing list archives
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:35:41 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
"Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. " - Simon J. Lyall. Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose not to. We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the 1918
^^^^^^^
That's odd, I didn't think routing to Null0 (or equivalent) was all that taxing, I don't want an ACL, I want it gone in the cheapest, fastest way possible.
that's odd... routing is a DESTINATION based problem, not a SOURCE based one.
Current thread:
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested, (continued)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul Vixie (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Ray Plzak (Nov 10)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Tony Hain (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Maimon (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 10)