On Friday, 4 October, 2019 16:05, William Herrin wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:28 PM Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 October, 2019 11:50, Fred Baker
>> wrote:
>>> A security geek would be all over me - "too many clues!".
>> Anyone who says something like that is not a "security
On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 07:01:58 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> One of a stupidity, among many, of IPv6 is that it assumes
> links have millions or billions of mostly immobile hosts
Can somebody hand me a match? There's a straw man argument
that needs to be set afire here.
pgp1MMtG4U3Ba.pgp
Descrip
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 20:23 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 16:48 , Michel Py wrote:
>>
>>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
>>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 16:48 , Michel Py wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>
> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
> Which is not p
it's a dos on my logs. and i do not want to turn hairpin detection off,
as there could be interesting things. sigh. :(
randy
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:48:33PM +, Michel Py wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote :
> > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
> > addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>
> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
That w
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
Which is not possible with the current IPv6 address format, if you want
som
On 10/4/19 5:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> for some months, our border routers log attempts to connect from the
> outside using a source address that is internal to my network. e.g.
>
> Oct 3 06:48:12 r0 7833: Oct 3 06:48:11.267: %FMANFP-6-IPACCESSLOGP: SIP0:
> fman_fp_image: list serial-in4 de
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 17:54 , Matt Hoppes
> wrote:
>
> I disagree on that. Ipv4 is very human readable. It is numbers.
>
> Ipv6 is not human numbers. It’s hex, which is not how we normally county.
>
> It is all water under the bridge now, but I really feel like ipv6 could have
> been made
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:28 PM Keith Medcalf wrote
> On Thursday, 3 October, 2019 11:50, Fred Baker
> wrote:
> > A security geek would be all over me - "too many clues!".
>
> Anyone who says something like that is not a "security geek". They are a
> "security poser", interested primarily in "se
Mark Andrews wrote:
Look at CableLabs specifications. There is also RFC 7084, Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers which CableLabs
reference.
One of a stupidity, among many, of IPv6 is that it assumes
links have millions or billions of mostly immobile hosts
and define very large
for some months, our border routers log attempts to connect from the
outside using a source address that is internal to my network. e.g.
Oct 3 06:48:12 r0 7833: Oct 3 06:48:11.267: %FMANFP-6-IPACCESSLOGP: SIP0:
fman_fp_image: list serial-in4 denied udp 147.28.0.223(3465) ->
147.28.0.222(53)
Look at CableLabs specifications. There is also RFC 7084, Basic Requirements
for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers which CableLabs reference.
Also RFC 8585, Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support
IPv4-as-a-Service
Mark
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 12:00 am, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 10/
Matt Harris wrote:
That is called "provider lock-in", which is the primary reason,
when IPng WG was formed, why automatic renumbering is necessary for
IPv6.
If this is a concern, then get an allocation from your local RIR and
announce it yourself. Then no provider lock-in based on address spa
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@li
On 10/4/19 7:45 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:13 AM Masataka Ohta
wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
And even
if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
in place all you have to change is the prefix.
This is the same as saying "If you need to change
On Friday, 4 October, 2019 05:55, "Doug Barton" said:
> ... unless you're large enough to have your own address space. And even
> if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
> in place all you have to change is the prefix.
And if this is hard, we should be beating up h
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:13 AM Masataka Ohta
wrote:
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > And even
> > if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
> > in place all you have to change is the prefix.
>
This is the same as saying "If you need to change providers in IPv4,
once you h
On 10/3/19 10:13 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> There is one thing in 1122/1123 and 1812 that is not in those kinds
> of documents that I miss; that is essentially "why". Going through
> 1122/1123 and 1812, you'll ind several sections that say "we require
> X", and follow that with a "discussion" section
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:42 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
> >> Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
> >> of IPv6 with reasons.
> >>
> >> Lack of it is still a problem.
>
> > Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss ab
Doug Barton wrote:
And even
if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
in place all you have to change is the prefix.
Your attempt to hype people that renumbering were easy has
zero probability of success here.
Except that it's not failing,
It failed from the b
21 matches
Mail list logo
