NANOG 40 agenda posted

Tue May 29 17:42:48 UTC 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -0000, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor
> > 2) solve your favorite fib/rib/cam/convergence limit,
> > nor 3) make the infrastructure inherently either
> > easier to operate or more secure.

> but ipv6 is more secure, yes? :) (no it is not)

Does the relative security of IVp4 and IPv6 *really* matter on the same Internet
that has Vint Cerf's 140 million pwned machines on it?

Just askin', ya know?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070529/aca09c0f/attachment.sig>