<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>MPLS on Insinuator.net - Bold Statements</title>
    <link>https://insinuator.net/tags/mpls/</link>
    <description>Recent content in MPLS on Insinuator.net - Bold Statements</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://insinuator.net/tags/mpls/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>IPv6-related Requirements for the Internet Uplink or MPLS Networks</title>
      <link>https://insinuator.net/2015/01/ipv6-related-requirements-for-the-internet-uplink-or-mpls-networks/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://insinuator.net/2015/01/ipv6-related-requirements-for-the-internet-uplink-or-mpls-networks/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;We’re currently involved in a complex RfP procedure for global network services of a large organization. As part of that we were asked to define a list of IPv6 related requirements as for the  Internet uplink and MPLS circuit connections. The involved service providers/carrier offerings will be checked to comply with those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a source of inspiration we mainly used the excellent “&lt;a href=&#34;http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/What_To_Ask_From_Your_Service_Provider_About_IPv6&#34;&gt;What To Ask From Your Service Provider About IPv6&lt;/a&gt;” document from Cisco, and enhanced that with stuff we observed in other environments (go wrong), namely with regard to MTU/PMTUD  and in the &lt;a href=&#34;https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/137-RIPE69_Langner_Rey_Schaetzle_Slash48_Considered_Harmful.pdf&#34;&gt;space of prefix filtering&lt;/a&gt;. Here’s the first draft list we came up with:&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Carriers Converge Their Internet and MPLS Infrastructure: Time to Redo Your Risk Assessment?</title>
      <link>https://insinuator.net/2011/11/carriers-converge-their-internet-and-mpls-infrastructure-time-to-redo-your-risk-assessment/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://insinuator.net/2011/11/carriers-converge-their-internet-and-mpls-infrastructure-time-to-redo-your-risk-assessment/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The above is the exact title of a &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?ref=seo&amp;amp;id=1853618%20&#34;&gt;Gartner research note&lt;/a&gt; published some days ago. Its main thesis is that an increased convergence of carriers’ MPLS and Internet infrastructures onto shared IP infrastructures requires that enterprises re-evaluate their security and performance risks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do not agree with the overall line of reasoning in the paper, it still highlights a number of interesting points when it comes to MPLS security. Which in turn reminds me of quite some stuff we’ve done in the past, mainly our Black Hat Europe 2009 &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.ernw.de/content/e7/e181/e1309/download1357/ERNW_BlackHatEurope09_all_your_packets_ger.pdf%20&#34;&gt;talk “All your packets are belong to us – Attacking backbone technologies”&lt;/a&gt;. Today we’ll release an updated version of the accompanying whitepaper as a kind-of technical report. Its title is “Practical Attacks against MPLS or Carrier Ethernet Networks” and it can be found &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.ernw.de/download/ERNW_MPLS-Carrier-Ethernet.pdf%20&#34;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
