This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ivan Pepelnjak ip at ioshints.info
Mon Jun 20 11:53:57 CEST 2011

> I think load balancers should be included; I know some universities who
> did not take part in W6D not because their web servers couldn't be made v6
> ready, but because their load balancers could not.

... and some of us had to deploy NAT-PT on an obsolete router just to make 6-to-4 transition before hitting the 6-unaware LBs. Nasty.

Agreed - LBs should be made part of the document.

> Switches:
> - add RA-Guard (RFC 6105 I think)

Agreed. Absolutely mandatory for any somewhat-secure deployment.

> Firewalls:
> - surprised SeND is optional

How many people are deploying SeND? Even in DMZ?

Ivan

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]