Hey all,
NIST is looking for comments on "Secure Interdomain Traffic Exchange – BGP
Robustness and DDoS Mitigation: NIST Releases Draft NIST SP 800-189"
They recently extended the deadline for comments to March 15, 2019, and so
it looks like they would really like feedback
-
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:18:39 +0100
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
> > unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6 customer".
> >
> > "IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't
> > I think it's
> > more reasonable to describe solutions for them than to rule their
> > problem out of order.
>
> In that, you are surely correct. But frankly, having read 4.3 I have a
> hard time taking it seriously as an early-stage IPv6 transition
> mechanism. It reads to me like pie in the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
> more or less forced into these scenarios by IPv4 exhaustion.
Hi Brian,
Respectfully, anyone betting on what the ISPs will be "forced" to do
is betting to l
On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6 customer".
"IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Smith"
>
> To: "Nick Hilliard"
> Cc: "NANOG list" , "Brian E Carpenter"
>
> Sent: Friday, 23 July, 2010 12:17:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Looking for comments
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +0100
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to
> > simplify
> > them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
> > However, the fact is that va
On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to simplify
them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
more or less forced into
Bill,
On 2010-07-22 19:49, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>>> There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
>>> the document: differing network security mod
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:49 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> From the lack of dispute, can I infer agreement with the remainder of
>> my comments wrt mitigations for the "one of my addresses doesn't work"
>> problem and the impracticality of the doc
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:49 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>>> There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
>>> the document: differing network security
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>> There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
>> the document: differing network security models that must deliver the
>> same result for the same c
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: "Karl Auer" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, 22 July, 2010 5:35:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Looking for comments
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Karl Auer"
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 July, 2010 4:24:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Looking for comments
>> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:37 -
- Original Message -
> From: "Karl Auer"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, 22 July, 2010 4:24:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Looking for comments
> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:37 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I can throw a COTS d-link box with
> > > ad
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:37 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I can throw a COTS d-link box with
> > address-overloaded NAT on a connection and have reasonably effective
> > network security and anonymity in IPv4. Achieving comparable results
> > in the IPv6 portion of the dual stack on each of those hos
>
>
> There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
> the document: differing network security models that must deliver the
> same result for the same collection of hosts regardless of whether
> Ipv4 or v6 is selected. I can throw a COTS d-link box with
> address-overload
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> IETF IPv6 Operations WG is looking at this draft, and we're interested
> in any comments you might have as well.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
> "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", Jari Ark
Hi
IETF IPv6 Operations WG is looking at this draft, and we're interested in any
comments you might have as well.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
"Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", Jari Arkko, Fred
Baker, 12-Jul-10
19 matches
Mail list logo
