nanog mailing list archives

RE: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course


From: Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:58:26 +1000

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 16:19 +0000, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
If an expert stood up in court and said "the chances that this
fingerprint is the defendant's are a million to one", and the
prosecutor then said "Aha! So you admit it's *possible*!" we would
rightly scorn the prosecutor for being an innumerate nincompoop. Yet
here we are paying serious heed to the idea that a ULA prefix conflict
is a real business risk.

Yes, but if this prosecutor does this a million times, he's bound to
be right at least once.

Hm. Would you hire a prosecutor who was, on average, right once in a
million times?

Yes, a good businessperson takes risks.  They also do everything
possible to mitigate those risks, such as background checks on
employees, lightning rods and grounding systems and insurance on the
electronics in the building, buy generators and fuel contracts or
source an emergency workplace.  Yes, a crazy employee may get through
a background check, but if the question is the presence of an attempt
and prevention, then what is the risk mitigation for ULA?

Choose a random ULA prefix. Done.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer () biplane com au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Current thread: