nanog mailing list archives
Re: misunderstanding scale
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:53:17 +0200
On Monday, March 24, 2014 02:41:00 AM Timothy Morizot wrote:
The original assertion was that there are unaddressed security weaknesses in IPv6 itself preventing its adoption. At least that's the way I read it. And that assertion is mostly FUD.
The risks have less to do with IPv6, and more to do with the fact that boxes that lived on RFC 1918 behind NAT44 "security gateways" may now, very possibly, be given a GUA address that now exposes them directly to the Interweb. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Re: misunderstanding scale, (continued)
- Re: misunderstanding scale William Herrin (Mar 24)
- 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)