mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Mar 24 06:53:17 UTC 2014
On Monday, March 24, 2014 02:41:00 AM Timothy Morizot wrote:
> 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.
The risks have less to do with IPv6, and more to do with the
fact that boxes that lived on RFC 1918 behind NAT44
"security gateways" may now, very possibly, be given a GUA
address that now exposes them directly to the Interweb.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the NANOG