Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
kauer at biplane.com.au
Sun Jul 25 17:58:26 CDT 2010
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
> 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.
Karl Auer (kauer at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the NANOG