5 ms·

> I felt back then that this community had a very unhealthy relationship with the quality of their software and the work of security researchers. I suspect a N

> I felt back then that this community had a very unhealthy relationship with the quality of their software and the work of security researchers. I suspect a Network Operators mailing list is going to be full of people trying to keep production up, with the tools they've got, rather than the tools they'd like. Thinking the software quality on the routers they're using are dogshit is probably just called "Monday" and thinking their peers' routers are even worse is called "Tuesday". I can understand they don't appreciate "research" done on production systems that might cause issues when they already know their equipment sucks.

themerone 3y ago
Network operators are also the ones that pop into IPV6 discussions to voice their displeasure with having support another protocol.
- booi 3y ago
  To be fair… supporting dual stack really does suck
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    A lot about networking sucks, but that's what people are paying them for.
- philg_jr 3y ago
  Also to be fair, IME there seems to be a lot more vocal pro-IPv6 people on the NANOG list than not.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Not really, ISPs (who are on nanog) tend to like ipv6. The ones who complain are sysadmins and network operators of campus/corporate networks.
  - icedchai 3y ago
    They've only had over a decade to get their act together. I'm being generous, seeing IPv6 is older than the original IPv4 internet was when it went mainstream.
gnfargbl 3y ago
I can't understand it. The network operators should save their vitriol for the vendors who are selling them equipment that sucks, and for whoever in their own organisation is continuing to purchase equipment that sucks. Bitching at researchers (note: not "researchers") who are finding and calling out those flaws before someone really bad comes along and exploits them is somewhere between unhelpful and negligent. Internet security is always improved by more sunlight.
- netfortius 3y ago
  I suppose you have never seen, ever, in your professional career, the "C" suits making business deals and thus decisions on what's to be acquired, with big network/server/storage/database/software vendors, over the head and against the advice of those then called to support crap in production.
- tw04 3y ago
  >I can't understand it. The network operators should save their vitriol for the vendors who are selling them equipment that sucks, and for whoever in their own organisation is continuing to purchase equipment that sucks. I think you fail to realize that the internet is a bunch of disparate networks that no one person controls. When "fixing" a router means you break half the internet, you just don't fix it. This isn't some walled garden where you can just say "tough shit if you broke, fix it". Most of the "issues" these researchers find are well known, but backbone operators are more militant than Linus when it comes to: rule #1 is don't break user space.
  - gnfargbl 3y ago
    > I think you fail to realize that the internet is a bunch of disparate networks that no one person controls. The internet is a bunch of disparate networks that no one person controls, exactly. That means that when someone tells you there's a fault in the kit that you have installed in your network, then that is 100% your problem and it is 100% on you to get it fixed. Once a vulnerability is known then someone out there is going to start exploiting it almost immediately. > backbone operators are more militant than Linus when it comes to: rule #1 is don't break user space. Backbone operators can have all the hubris they want, but it won't change the reality that the only effective action they can take when a vulnerability is found is to get it fixed ASAP. This is a security lesson that has been learnt in recent years by many sectors of the IT industry and, judging by the woeful response that Ben Cartwright-Cox describes in his post, it's one that the network backbone is going to be learning soon.
loa_in_ 3y ago
Except there's no "staging Internet" to test such equipment, and even if there was it would still sometimes not translate to the real open network. I'm sorry, were they inconvinienced with the world at large?

themerone 3y ago

Network operators are also the ones that pop into IPV6 discussions to voice their displeasure with having support another protocol.

booi 3y ago
To be fair… supporting dual stack really does suck
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  A lot about networking sucks, but that's what people are paying them for.
philg_jr 3y ago
Also to be fair, IME there seems to be a lot more vocal pro-IPv6 people on the NANOG list than not.
kortilla 3y ago
Not really, ISPs (who are on nanog) tend to like ipv6. The ones who complain are sysadmins and network operators of campus/corporate networks.
- icedchai 3y ago
  They've only had over a decade to get their act together. I'm being generous, seeing IPv6 is older than the original IPv4 internet was when it went mainstream.

gnfargbl 3y ago

I can't understand it. The network operators should save their vitriol for the vendors who are selling them equipment that sucks, and for whoever in their own organisation is continuing to purchase equipment that sucks. Bitching at researchers (note: not "researchers") who are finding and calling out those flaws before someone really bad comes along and exploits them is somewhere between unhelpful and negligent. Internet security is always improved by more sunlight.

netfortius 3y ago
I suppose you have never seen, ever, in your professional career, the "C" suits making business deals and thus decisions on what's to be acquired, with big network/server/storage/database/software vendors, over the head and against the advice of those then called to support crap in production.
tw04 3y ago
>I can't understand it. The network operators should save their vitriol for the vendors who are selling them equipment that sucks, and for whoever in their own organisation is continuing to purchase equipment that sucks. I think you fail to realize that the internet is a bunch of disparate networks that no one person controls. When "fixing" a router means you break half the internet, you just don't fix it. This isn't some walled garden where you can just say "tough shit if you broke, fix it". Most of the "issues" these researchers find are well known, but backbone operators are more militant than Linus when it comes to: rule #1 is don't break user space.
- gnfargbl 3y ago
  > I think you fail to realize that the internet is a bunch of disparate networks that no one person controls. The internet is a bunch of disparate networks that no one person controls, exactly. That means that when someone tells you there's a fault in the kit that you have installed in your network, then that is 100% your problem and it is 100% on you to get it fixed. Once a vulnerability is known then someone out there is going to start exploiting it almost immediately. > backbone operators are more militant than Linus when it comes to: rule #1 is don't break user space. Backbone operators can have all the hubris they want, but it won't change the reality that the only effective action they can take when a vulnerability is found is to get it fixed ASAP. This is a security lesson that has been learnt in recent years by many sectors of the IT industry and, judging by the woeful response that Ben Cartwright-Cox describes in his post, it's one that the network backbone is going to be learning soon.

loa_in_ 3y ago

Except there's no "staging Internet" to test such equipment, and even if there was it would still sometimes not translate to the real open network. I'm sorry, were they inconvinienced with the world at large?