Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
From: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith () adhost com>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 01:26:59 +0000

I thought iced-over fiber was a little bit like muffler-bearings.  Great
excuse if they buy it.


On 4/1/11 6:07 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote:

It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss.


On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote:

I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...

----- Reply message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <swm () emanon com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am
Subject: v6 Avian Carriers?
To: <nanog () nanog org>

Mmm...  Good question.  Would it actually come back OUT in a
recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner?

I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross.   ;)


On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on.   Now I know.
So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet
loss or tunneling?



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]