nanog mailing list archives
Re: misunderstanding scale
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:14:55 +1100
In message <CAN3um4wnMPW=BQ6ec_=NH-Ua50Nn3QL9T+NXdo-ADNzCJHKQYQ () mail gmail com> , Mike Hale writes:
"I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever." It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of companies are facing. Calling it FUD is completely wrong because it *is* a legitimate security issue for most businesses. Sure, you've got the few who have been able to properly plan for and secure their networks against the increased attack surface of IPv6, but again...most companies haven't. Slinging false proclamations of FUD is as harmful as FUD itself.
And there are security issues with IPv4 but no one is saying don't deploy IPv4 because there are security issues. There are security issues with just about everything. Most of them are rare and have mitigations. Saying there are security issues without enumerating them is FUD. There is a security issue with DHCP, there is no authentication of the server. For 99.99% of sites this is a non issue. For those where it is a issue there are mitigation strategies. This doesn't stop it being a security issue.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot () gmail com> wrote:On Mar 23, 2014 6:21 PM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster () mykolab com> wrote:Says you.And many others. My comments were actually reiterating what I commonly see presented today.On the other hand, there are beaucoup enterprise networks unwilling to consider to moving to v6 until there are management, control, administrative, and security issues addressed.Whereas there are other enterprise networks, including mine, who are actively deploying IPv6 and have been for a number of years now. So unless you can come up with something truly novel that we haven't already dealt with, I'll stick by my use of FUD.You can continue to deride our issues, and make derisive comments until your heart's content, but it does not change reality.I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever. Cheers, Scott-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: misunderstanding scale, (continued)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Laszlo Hanyecz (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale George Herbert (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Mark Andrews (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Jimmy Hess (Mar 25)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Mark Tinka (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Mark Andrews (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Bryan Socha (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Tim Franklin (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Bob Evans (Mar 24)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) TJ (Mar 25)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Lee Howard (Mar 25)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Bob Evans (Mar 25)