nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:07:09 -0700
It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss. Owen 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. ;) Scott 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? http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ Marc
Current thread:
- Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?, (continued)
- Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Justin M. Streiner (Apr 01)
- Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Dorn Hetzel (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Cutler James R (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Andy Davidson (Apr 01)
- Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Richard Barnes (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Dave Edelman (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Owen DeLong (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Brandon Ross (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Scott Morris (Apr 01)
- Re: v6 Avian Carriers? Michael K. Smith - Adhost (Apr 01)