[125739] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Thu Apr 22 07:53:06 2010
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:52:31 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <y2s3c3e3fca1004220446j6a015371p265fd056116607d0@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:46:50AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:30 AM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC picks
> >> up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new outbound
> >> connection for anonymity purposes. Even if there is no such draft, it
> >> wouldn't exactly be hard to implement. It won't take NAT to anonymize
> >> the PCs on a LAN with IPv6.
> >
> > the idea is covered by one or more patents held by cisco.
>
> Won't stop the worms from using it to hide which PC they're living on.
>
no... but then you just block the /32 and your fine... :)
kind of like how people now block /8s for ranges that are
"messy"
--bill
