nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3


From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:53:41 -0800

Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:23:25 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:37:41 -0800
"Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net> wrote:

The main reason I prefer ISIS is that it uses CLNS packets for
communications and we don't route CLNS. (I don't think ANYONE is
routing CLNS today.) That makes it pretty secure.

Unless, of course, someone one hop away -- a peer?  a customer?  an
upstream or downstream? someone on the same LAN at certain exchange
points? -- sends you a CLNP packet at link level...

You mean that someone is silly enough to enable CLNS on external
interfaces? I mean, it's not by default on either Cisco or Juniper. I
don't imagine any other routers do that, either. (Of course, SOMEONE is
always that silly. But I hope the folks reading this are not.)
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman () es net                       Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

Attachment: _bin
Description:


Current thread: