tmorizot at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 00:41:00 UTC 2014
On Mar 23, 2014 7:24 PM, "Mike Hale" <eyeronic.design at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue
> that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of companies
> are facing.
The original assertion was that there are unaddressed security weaknesses
in IPv6 itself preventing its adoption. At least that's the way I read it.
And that assertion is mostly FUD.
> Calling it FUD is completely wrong because it *is* a legitimate
> security issue for most businesses. Sure, you've got the few who have
> been able to properly plan for and secure their networks against the
> increased attack surface of IPv6, but again...most companies haven't.
Well, it's hardly a few at this point, unless by few you simply mean a
minority. But it's a numerous and growing minority. Moreover, the
acknowledgement that enterprises have been able to properly plan and deploy
IPv6 while appropriately mitigating the security risks shows the claim that
there are security weaknesses in IPv6 preventing its adoption is false.
Now admittedly if an enterprise hasn't done any security planning or
assessments then they aren't ready to deploy IPv6. But there's nothing
inherent to IPv6 stopping them.
More information about the NANOG