nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
From: Joe Malcolm <jmalcolm () uraeus com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:24:18 +0000
Steven M. Bellovin writes:
Unless, of course, someone one hop away -- a peer? a customer? an upstream or downstream? someone on the same LAN at certain exchange points? -- sends you a CLNP packet at link level...
True enough, and mistakenly enabling ISIS on external ports has been known to happen though in the absence of malice it usually causes no problems. If it does cause problems, generally the source can be more easily localized given that it has to be L2-adjacent to one of your routers. Joe
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3, (continued)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 28)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Roque Gagliano (Dec 30)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 30)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Joe Malcolm (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Kevin Oberman (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Martin List-Petersen (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 devang patel (Dec 27)