[153905] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 15 18:51:34 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120615145545.EEE724C1@m0005296.ppops.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:47:47 -0700
To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>=20
>>>> =
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shiel=
d-criminals-from-police/
>>=20
>> The article sure does have a lot of threatening and smack-down tones =
toward service providers (us):
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> "We're looking at a problem that's about to occur,""It occurs as =
service providers start to roll out V6."
>>=20
>> Our fault, no one else's...
>> ------------------------------------
>=20
> :: Who else would you blame for failing to update whois?
> --------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> At the risk of 10k flamethrowers turning my way...
>=20
> It is no difference than in v4. Those that do in v4 will do=20
> in v6 and those that don't in v4 won't in v6, so why make v6=20
> the culprit? That isn't helpful.
>=20
The perception, right, wrong, or indifferent is that many that do in =
IPv4 do only when forced to in order to get their next "fix" of IPv4 =
addresses to feed their legacy protocol habit. Since IPv6 policy allows =
them to get many many years worth of addresses and not come back for =
more for a very long time, if ever, that is the driving difference that =
the article is discussing.
I don't agree with the article, but, the underlying problem of service =
providers being lazy about updating whois can, indeed, be greatly =
exacerbated by current IPv6 policy.
The worst possible outcome of this problem would be IPv6 policy that =
restores the whois incentives contained in IPv4 policy.
Owen
