nanog mailing list archives

Re: misunderstanding scale


From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:45:50 -0700

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:27:16PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster () mykolab com> wrote:
Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
considering it.

And that is pure FUD. The sorts of security risks with IPv6 are mostly in
the same sorts of categories as those with IPv4 and have appropriate
mitigations available. Moreover, by not enabling and controlling IPv6 on
their networks, an operator is actually markedly more vulnerable to IPv6
attacks, not less.

Scott

        Yo, Tim/Scott.   Seems you have not been keeping up.

        http://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DREN-6-Slo-IPv6Summit-2011.pdf

        points out several unique problems w/ IPv6 and in deployments where
        there are ZERO IPv4 equivalents.  Ferg is paranoid, but it doesn;t
        mean they are not out to get him/IPv6.

/bill


Current thread: