nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: Roger Marquis <marquis () roble com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
William Herrin wrote:
Not to take issue with either statement in particular, but I think there needs to be some consideration of what "fail" means.Fail means that an inexperienced admin drops a router in place of the firewall to work around a priority problem while the senior engineer is on vacation. With NAT protecting unroutable addresses, that failure mode fails closed.
In addition to fail-closed NAT also means: * search engines and and connectivity providers cannot (easily) differentiate and/or monitor your internal hosts, and * multiple routes do not have to be announced or otherwise accommodated by internal re-addressing. Roger Marquis
Current thread:
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Jack Bates (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Jack Bates (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Chris Adams (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Chris Adams (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Jack Bates (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Chris Adams (Apr 21)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Owen DeLong (Apr 21)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Franck Martin (Apr 21)
- Looking for an Admin at the IANA... todd glassey (Apr 22)
- Re: Looking for an Admin at the IANA... bmanning (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 23)