[184481] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Oct 3 23:20:18 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWNbMo=uORF9Lhh-ppyn_8e9FGU92y4qyaMs8BXg+aY7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:19:01 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Oct 3, 2015, at 14:01 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Scott Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> One of the points in having 64 bits reserved for the host
>> portion of the address is that you never need to think or worry about
>> individual addresses
>=20
> Well, that turned out to be a farce. Instead of worrying about running
> out of addresses on the lan, you have to worry about other people
> tracking your mobile users through their static 64 bit tail (SLAAC) or
> having trouble internally tracking your users (privacy extensions).
> Give me the straightforward problem over the subtle one any time.
Both of these are solved through network-hashed persistent IPv6 privacy =
addresses.
Owen
