North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
If your argument is that it is "to hard" to scan that many addresses, do you really think that in an age of 100Gbps broadband 100ghrz home PC's that will really be the barrier you think it is? Or better put: Over the possible lifetime of v6 will that barrier remain real? And the scanner merely has to get lucky once. Or they can have a zombie army of scanners that will be statistically guaranteed to get lucky at least once.On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote: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.Just name a few: - Possibility to end-to-end IPSec.exists in v4- Not feasible scanning of subnets remotelyeh... maybe, I'm not convinced this matters anyway.
As if they need to keep 128 bits for the tracking to be accurate.- Privacy enhanced addresses - not tracking usage based on addresses
If everybody gets /64 then I am certain trackers will be quite happy to limit their tracking to that, it will serve them the same purpose.
dhcp can do this for you (v4 has mechanisms for this)- Better ingress filteringright... because gear that filters so well in v4-land will filter so much better in v6-land? you == crazy. All those objections aside, I'd love to see v6 more fully deployed. I'm not sure I see how it's going to get beyond 'research' or 'play' land, except for some small cases, for quite some time. It's interesting that the flood gates on ip space are openning at IANA though, that should hasten the v6 takeup/deployment :)
IPv6 is a classic "second system". And now we are stuck with it.