nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:09:24 -0500 (EST)
That depends very much on what is being reached. Would it be reasonable for a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net to start silently blocking v6 datagrams on a whim?
There are *.root-servers.net (or the networks they're behind) which have/do block v4 datagrams on a whim, political winds, or the phase of the moon. Sometimes they drop them from just certain countries. Other times its difficult for the external observer to guess their motivation. On the other hand, all the gtld-servers.net happen to be operated by a single organization. What does their contract say they can do with v6, v4 or DECNET packets? Are they required to provide v4 or v6 service at all? Its amazing how sometimes people want providers to drop all sorts of packets, and other times people get upset when providers drop all sorts of packets. ipv6 e-dns smtp netbios icmp net-10.0.0.0 multicast directed-broadcast
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Christopher L. Morrow (Dec 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Stephen Sprunk (Dec 31)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Joe Abley (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Sean Donelan (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection bmanning (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Joe Abley (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Hank Nussbacher (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Nicolas FISCHBACH (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Kevin Oberman (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Manish Karir (Jan 01)
- Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection Nils Ketelsen (Jan 04)