nanog mailing list archives
Re: IXP
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:12:24 +0000
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:17:11 -0400 From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:58:24 +0000 bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:i make the claim that simple, clean design and execution is best. even the security goofs will agree."Even"? *Especially* -- or they're not competent at doing security.
wouldn't a security person also know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_spoofing and know that many colo facilities now use one customer per vlan due to this concern? (i remember florian weimer being surprised that we didn't have such a policy on the ISC guest network.) if we maximize for simplicity we get a DELNI. oops that's not fast enough we need a switch not a hub and it has to go 10Gbit/sec/port. looks like we traded away some simplicity in order to reach our goals.
Current thread:
- Re: IXP, (continued)
- Re: IXP Daniel Roesen (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Randy Bush (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Matthew Moyle-Croft (Apr 17)
- RE: IXP Deepak Jain (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP bmanning (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP bmanning (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP bmanning (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Jack Bates (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Dale Carstensen (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Ferguson (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Roland Dobbins (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Sean Donelan (Apr 19)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 23)