v6 Avian Carriers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksmith at adhost.com
Sat Apr 2 01:26:59 UTC 2011
I thought iced-over fiber was a little bit like muffler-bearings. Great
excuse if they buy it.
Mike
On 4/1/11 6:07 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss.
>
>Owen
>
>On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote:
>
>> I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
>>
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "Scott Morris" <swm at emanon.com>
>> Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am
>> Subject: v6 Avian Carriers?
>> To: <nanog at nanog.org>
>>
>> Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a
>> recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner?
>>
>> I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. ;)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
>>> I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know.
>>>So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet
>>>loss or tunneling?
>>>
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
>>>
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list