[81822] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Thu Jun 30 17:12:19 2005
Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: "'Fergie (Paul Ferguson)'" <fergdawg@netzero.net>,
<christopher.morrow@mci.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:11:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050630.133709.4600.295205@webmail28.lax.untd.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
We could have been much better served adding 3-bits at the beginning.
Effectively giving a full IP v4 space to every continent (even Antartica)
and having an extra one for the extra-terrestrial working group. ;)
And it would have given us real geographic-based filtering capabilities at
the same time without any major changes to everything we have worked so hard
to get to the level of insanity where we are today.
*shrug* Simple things often get overlooked.
Notice though that the deadline in the US terms is squarely inside the "next
guy's term". ;) Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmm..."
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:37 PM
To: christopher.morrow@mci.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling "improved
security measures", not me, dude. :-)
I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded by v6 proponents
have effectively been retro-fitted to v4, thereby negating almost every v6
migration argument, with the exception of a larger host address pool.
Equally dumbfounded in v4-land,
- ferg
-- "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> wrote:
> over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional
> advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and
> additional links for wireless devices.
>
which 'security measures' are included in ipv6? which additional links for
wireless devices?
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.
-dazed and confused in ipv4-land.
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or
fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
