the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Fri Apr 30 19:45:14 CDT 2010
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:22:47 -0700
Bill Stewart <nonobvious at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >> Here's an exercise. Wipe a PC. Put it on that cable modem with no firewall. Install XP on it. See if you can get any service packs installed before the box is infected.
> > 1. Yes, I can. I simply didn't put an IPv4 address on it. ;-)
> > 2. I wouldn't hold XP up as the gold standard of hosts here.
> One of my coworkers was IPv6ing his home network. He had to turn off
> the Windows firewall on the machine with the IPv6 tunnel for a couple
> of minutes to install some stubborn software. Then he had to reimage
> the box because it was pwned, and he's pretty sure that the infection
> came in over the IPv6 tunnel, not the hardware-firewalled IPv4.
Your friend should learn about causation verses correlation
Every noticed how people who have car accidents got out of bed that
> Thanks; Bill
> Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
> And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
More information about the NANOG