[156413] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Mon Sep 17 19:54:24 2012
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:53:49 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20120917233210.61755.qmail@joyce.lan>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/17/2012 4:32 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <CAArzuotqwgpBw46+xb1ngmcN1YrYTtpYgyYmPPxPQQuG9K6BdQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to
>> happen in a decade or two?
> In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
> arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign
> IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom.
>
> My current example of how bit IPv6 addresses are: my home LAN has a
> tunneled IPv6 network, and the web server on my laptop has an IPv6
> address. Even though some of the stuff on the laptop is somewhat
> confidential, I haven't bothered to use any passwords. Why? Because
> guessing the random low 64 bits assigned to the web server (which are
> not the auto generated address from the LAN card) is at least as hard
> as any password scheme.
>
And so you never visit any websites from that laptop that might keep
access logs either? You do know that lists of "active" IPv6 addresses
are already not that hard to come by, and that'll just get more and more
true over time, yes?
Matthew Kaufman
