On 2014-08-28 07:57, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Jen had presented some similar stats a year ago.
https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/288-Jen_RIPE67.pdf
These kind of issues have been demonstrated for as long as IPv6 has
existed, and people have been complaining to their account managers
...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com
Date: jeudi 28 ao?t 2014 07:46
To: Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.chmailto:jer...@massar.ch
Cc: IPv6 Ops list
ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.demailto:ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: Something with filters
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jeroen Massar
jer
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
to be honest, as another security person, I'm not really sure about the
benefit of uRPF in the IPv6 world, in some scenarios.
imagine a single infected smartphone on LTE, generating connections with
potentially 2^64 different source
Subject: Re: Something with filters
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jeroen Massar
jer...@massar.chmailto:jer...@massar.ch wrote:
9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.018 ms 79.910 ms 79.960 ms
10 :: (::) 101.893 ms 102.004 ms 103.574 ms
11 rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.nethttp://rar3
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
to be honest, as another security person, I'm not really sure about the
benefit of uRPF in the IPv6 world, in some scenarios.
imagine a single infected smartphone on LTE, generating connections with
potentially 2^64 different
On 8/28/14 10:56 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Hi Enno,
Regarding a 3GPP phone, AFAIK, it receives a /64 so it is scalable and
easy to enforce uRPF at the very first layer-3 routers. Same for a home
CPE (with a very minor impact, uRPF has same performance as plain
forwarding == same lookup
I was doing some traceroutes to determine some weird claim of a transit
(not shown in the below trace) being tier1 while another transit
actually popped up in their network and then noticed this beauty:
9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.018 ms 79.910 ms 79.960 ms
10 :: (::) 101.893
On 2014-08-27 19:52, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Aug 27, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch wrote:
I was doing some traceroutes to determine some weird claim of a transit
(not shown in the below trace) being tier1 while another transit
actually popped up in their network and then
Hi,
Especially a check for a zero'd address is really not that hard; it is
just crazyness that that is not checked for.
If possible, please file this problem with your relevant technical
contacts and account managers, as it is just nonsense that that packet
is allowed to travel over the
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch wrote:
9 2001:5a0:a00::2e (2001:5a0:a00::2e) 79.018 ms 79.910 ms 79.960 ms
10 :: (::) 101.893 ms 102.004 ms 103.574 ms
11 rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net (:::65.106.1.155) 104.732 ms
Yeah baby, we can use the
Jen had presented some similar stats a year ago.
https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/288-Jen_RIPE67.pdf
--
Tassos
Jeroen Massar wrote on 27/8/2014 19:01:
I was doing some traceroutes to determine some weird claim of a transit
(not shown in the below trace) being tier1 while another transit
11 matches
Mail list logo