Re: IPv6, IPSEC and deep packet inspection

From: Sean Donelan (no email)
Date: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 22:09:24 EST

  • Next message: Christopher L. Morrow: "Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams"

    > That depends very much on what is being reached. Would it be reasonable
    > for a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net to start silently
    > blocking v6 datagrams on a whim?

    There are *.root-servers.net (or the networks they're behind) which
    have/do block v4 datagrams on a whim, political winds, or the phase of
    the moon. Sometimes they drop them from just certain countries. Other
    times its difficult for the external observer to guess their motivation.

    On the other hand, all the gtld-servers.net happen to be operated by a
    single organization. What does their contract say they can do with v6,
    v4 or DECNET packets? Are they required to provide v4 or v6 service at
    all?

    Its amazing how sometimes people want providers to drop all sorts of
    packets, and other times people get upset when providers drop all sorts
    of packets.

    ipv6
    e-dns
    smtp
    netbios
    icmp
    net-10.0.0.0
    multicast
    directed-broadcast


  • Next message: Christopher L. Morrow: "Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD