[ipv6hackers] IPv6 security (slides and training)

fred bovy fred at fredbovy.com
Fri Nov 18 00:46:25 CET 2011

Le 12/11/11 01:09, « Doug Barton » <dougb at dougbarton.us> a écrit :

>On 11/11/2011 16:05, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> On 11/11/11 2:40 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> > I think that the IPv4 folks will quickly have problems
>>> > communicating with
>>> >> their partners and customers running IPv6.
>>>  ... which is one of the big motivations to not be a first-mover to
>>>  IPv6 in the first place.
>> Doug,
>> Disagree.  These partners also likely represent the land of
>> opportunity.  Rather than receiving a growing portion of traffic over
>> LSNs, offering IPv6 connectivity conveys better information when
>> deciding which exchanges to permit.  In addition, direct access better
>> prevents MitM and broken double NAT issues.
>You guys keep missing the part where *I* agree with you.
>The question isn't, "Is IPv6 the right answer?" The question is, "Why do
>so many organizations believe that CGN is a better answer?"

REALLY???? So give me some references of SP who have deployed NAT444???

I am curiousŠ


>		"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
>		"Too practical."
>	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
>	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/
>Ipv6hackers mailing list
>Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com

More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list