On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:28:11AM +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 6 lines which said:
> http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Security-Incident-Response/Important-Announcement-about-ScreenOS/ba-p/285554
The password for the first backdoor (the one regarding telnet/SSH
access) has been p
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 03:03:18PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
> > from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
> > addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's
> > just confusing a
Hi,
> > > persuading people to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone
> > > already understands DHCP in the v4 world.
> > enterprise) and once they stop thinking "I want to do everything
> > in IPv6 in exactly the same way as I have always done in IPv4"
exactly.
as my thoughts often gather at
It simply is not common and will not become common. Not everyone is a network
engineer.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Medcalf"
To: nanog@nanog
--- chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Chuck Church"
but I'm just having a hard time believing Joe Sixpack will be applying
business networking principals such as micro-segmenting to a home network
with 3 to 7 devices on it. If anything, these complexities we keep
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Chuck Church wrote:
insist on "NAT/PAT != firewall". Well, a router routing everything it sees
is even less of a firewall. I'm really not trying to be argumentative here,
but I'm just having a hard time believing Joe Sixpack will be applying
business networking principals
I'm surprised that noone of the home wifi router folk haven't cornered the
market on that one in terms of client separation. Most people don't need the
devices to talk to each other so by default all ports on different VLANs ..
192.168.0-8.x etc
Internet of things security out of the box. Web
In article <4102d692-a315-4c38-a2cb-54f96999e...@lboro.ac.uk> you write:
>I'm surprised that noone of the home wifi router folk haven't cornered the
>market on that
>one in terms of client separation. Most people don't need the devices to talk
>to each
>other so by default all ports on different
Alan Buxey wrote:
> Most people don't need the devices to talk to each other
A lot of home networking uses mDNS - partitioning off devices will break
things like printing and chromecast and using your phone as a remote
control for your media players, etc. ad nauseam.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/12/back_door_in_ju.html
We already have CPE vendors shipping with "guest" ssids. These
require a seperate /64 and are usually treated as external to the
home network. With IPv4 you grab a seperate chunck of rfc1918 space
and nat that as well as the main chuck of space. For IPv6 you need
multiple /64s from the ISP. A
In message , Tony Fin
ch writes:
> Alan Buxey wrote:
>
> > Most people don't need the devices to talk to each other
>
> A lot of home networking uses mDNS - partitioning off devices will break
> things like printing and chromecast and using your phone as a remote
> control for your media player
> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> There's nothing that can really be done about it now and I certainly wasn't
> able to participate when these things were decided.
>
> However, keeping back 64 bits for the host was a stupid move from the
> beginning. We're reserving 64 bi
Not quite true…
"What happens when we have to make an incompatible change to the fundamental
packet header?” is the real challenge.
It happens that in the case of IPv4, we didn’t hit that particular wall until
we needed a larger address.
In IPv6, it will probably be something related to the ab
--- ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
From: Jared Mauch
I'd love to hear from people on what they perceive and
the real barriers they have seen with regards to IPv6
in your environment.
---
In the enterprise; managers that don't (and don't want
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Nick Ellermann
wrote:
> We have customers asking to lease IP space for BGP transit with us and
> other peers. But they are struggling to get at a minimum even a Class C,
> even though they have their own ASN. We don't have large amounts of free
> IPv4 space to lea
On 21/Dec/15 07:22, Jason Baugher wrote:
>
> >From a service provider perspective, I feel we have 2 choices. The first is
> to spend a lot of time trying to educate our customers on how networks work
> and how to manage theirs. Personally, I'd rather have my fingernails pulled
> out. The second,
17 matches
Mail list logo
