Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:25 PM Randy Bush wrote: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6092 > > good stuff. thanks. > The memories are all coming back now. I thought this was old news. regards, Victor K

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6092 good stuff. thanks.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On 29 Sep 2021, at 05:02, Randy Bush wrote: > >> Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home >> people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? > > in ipv6 they can. and it can have consequences, see > >NATting Else Matters: Evaluating

Re: 100GbE beyond 40km

On 9/27/21 1:47 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: You're looking for SOA at 1300nm, like https://www.fs.com/uk/products/69350.html Getting much more power out of a SOA than a -ZR QSFP28 is pretty hard, though they could be used for non-OEO re-generation in the middle if practical in your

Re: uPRF strict more

Randy, great question. I'm teaching that it's very rarely, if ever, used (due to high potential for benign loss); it's always great to be either confirmed or corrected... So if anyone replies just to Randy - pls cc me too (or, Randy, if you could sum up and send to list or me - thanks!) Amir --

uPRF strict more

do folk use uPRF strict mode? i always worried about the multi-homed customer sending packets out the other way which loop back to me; see RFC 8704 §2.2 do vendors implement the complexity of 8704; and, if so, do operators use it? clue bat please randy

Robocall Mitigation Database Call Blocking Deadline Is Today

According to the FCC, 4,798 companies had filed in the Robocall Mitigation Database with many hundreds of carriers, including all of the largest phone carriers, certifying to implementation of STIR/SHAKEN standards on their IP networks. Beginning today, if a voice service provider’s

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

>> the ietf did not give guidance to cpe vendors to protect toys inside >> your LAN > guidance aside... 'Time To Market' (or "Minimum Viable Product - MVP!) is > likely to impact all of our security 'requirements'. :( that point was made in the paper i cited > I also thought 'homenet'

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/28/21 1:06 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 3:02 PM Randy Bush > wrote: > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? in ipv6 they can. 

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 3:02 PM Randy Bush wrote: > > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? > > in ipv6 they can. and it can have consequences, see > > NATting Else Matters: Evaluating

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? in ipv6 they can. and it can have consequences, see NATting Else Matters: Evaluating IPv6 Access Control Policies in Residential Networks;

What happens when you don't validate/scrub data on input from whois

https://research.securitum.com/fail2ban-remote-code-execution/ What happens if you put the following in your whois entry: drop table prefixes; Or anything similar... https://xkcd.com/327/

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 28, 2021, at 08:13 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Mark Andrews wrote: > >>> Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home >>> people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? >> Yes! Remember routable does not mean that it is reachable from

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 28, 2021, at 02:19 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? NAT is absolutely that evil after all. The presence of NAT has basically prevented a number of

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Mark Andrews wrote: Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? Yes! Remember routable does not mean that it is reachable from outside. Do you mean, because of hole punching, "not routable" does not

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On 28 Sep 2021, at 19:19, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? Yes! Remember routable does not mean that it is reachable from outside. > And if they change ISP they

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: VoIP Provider DDoSes

For those persons with voip.ms accounts, the DDoS-protected servers are in their control panel with a green checkmark next to them as recommended servers. Now it looks like part of the DDoS has shifted to bandwidth.com. On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:40 PM Mike Hammett wrote: > It seems like

Re: 100GbE beyond 40km

> Looking at EDFA options... they are all ~1500nm as far as I can tell. Is there a specific model you are talking about? Yeah, that is a consequence of how the EDFA technology works. It really only works in the C-band and sometimes the L-band, depending on how it's manufactured. If you contact

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? And if they change ISP they will get new range? Doesnt sounds nice to me.. But I guess I its just me Yeah I am aware of putting additional aliases on loopback.