On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:27:16PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, "Paul Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
> > are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
> > considering it.
>
> And that is pure FUD. The sorts of security risks with IPv6 are mostly in
> the same sorts of categories as those with IPv4 and have appropriate
> mitigations available. Moreover, by not enabling and controlling IPv6 on
> their networks, an operator is actually markedly more vulnerable to IPv6
> attacks, not less.
>
> Scott
Yo, Tim/Scott. Seems you have not been keeping up.
http://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DREN-6-Slo-IPv6Summit-2011.pdf
points out several unique problems w/ IPv6 and in deployments where
there are ZERO IPv4 equivalents. Ferg is paranoid, but it doesn;t
mean they are not out to get him/IPv6.
/bill
