Fwd: Interesting problems with using IPv6
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 7 17:13:57 UTC 2014
On Sep 7, 2014 8:35 AM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster at mykolab.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> There's been a lot of on-and-off discussion about v6, especially about
> security and operational concerns about some aspects of IPv6
> deployment, specifically regarding neighbor discovery (although there
> are other operational security concerns, as well).
> I'd like to provide this as an example of those concerns, without any
> additional commentary. :-)
> See also:
ietf at ... Yawn.
> - - ferg
What's your point? Is it that ip networks fail?
There are decades of mailing lists archives at nanog and others that have
the same thing -- 1) stressed out ops guy 2) buggy code (tac says need to
load latest code as first step) 3) L2 mess -- most of those examples of
epic failure are ipv4 related, but many are just ethernet fails.
If your point is that IPv6 cannot be deployed at scale, i have a list of
meaningful counter examples where in fact it does work.
And as already mention, the mailing list archive at nanog and others is
full of folks with poor design or gear.
There are various docs that try to help folks deploy networks well.
> - -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Interesting problems with using IPv6
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 09:28:45 +0000
> From: l.wood at surrey.ac.uk
> To: ietf at ietf.org
> Interesting scaling concerns...
> Lloyd Wood
> - --
> Paul Ferguson
> VP Threat Intelligence, IID
> PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
> Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the NANOG