North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

  • From: Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
  • Date: Thu Jun 30 17:05:00 2005

The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling
"improved security measures", not me, dude. :-)

I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded
by v6 proponents have effectively been retro-fitted to v4,
thereby negating almost every v6 migration argument, with
the exception of a larger host address pool.

Equally dumbfounded in v4-land,

- ferg

-- "Christopher L. Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote:

>    over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional
>    advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and
>    additional links for wireless devices.

which 'security measures' are included in ipv6? which additional links for
wireless devices?

This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for
the implementations not the protocol itself)  than v4. I could be wrong,
but I'm just not seeing any 'inherent security' in v6, and selling it that
way is just a bad plan.

-dazed and confused in ipv4-land.

"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 [email protected] or [email protected]
 ferg's tech blog: