* Mikael Abrahamsson: > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Interesting, thnaks. It's not the vendors I would expect, and it's >> not based on SEND (which is not surprising at all and actually a >> good thing). > > Personally I think SEND is never going to get any traction.
Last time, I was told that SEND was the way to go, despite not actually fixing anything. This mess is even worse than SCTP. >> Is this actually secure in the sense that it ties addresses to >> specific ports for both sending and receiving? I'm asking because >> folks have built similar systems for IPv4 which weren't. The CLI >> screenshots look good, better than what most folks achieve with >> IPv4. > > As far as I know, it's designed to work securely in an ETTH scenario, > which implies both sending and receiving (if I understood you > correctly). And it would also plug the NDP DOS vector because you've got a small set of addresses you need to process. Let's hope this gets buy-in from more vendors (and across the whole switch product lines, please), with full interoperability. _____ NANOG mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
