ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

Mon Jun 18 02:56:02 UTC 2012

On Jun 17, 2012 7:46 PM, "Vinny Abello" <vinny at abellohome.net> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/2012 10:22 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> > On 6/17/12, Joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> resources were delegated to them. future prefix assignments will
> >> clearly require that the demonstrate utilization much as they are
> >> required to in ipv4.
> >
> > Sure. But they don't necessarily have to have WHOIS listings up to
> > date in order to successfully demonstrate utilization; it is possible
> > they provide private documentation or utilize the spreadsheet method
> > of demonstrating utilization, without publishing details in WHOIS,
> > and indicate they themselves serve as contact.
> >
> >
> > The IP address WHOIS database is a system for identifying valid
> > network contacts to report connectivity and operational issues to,
> > and the contact listed in WHOIS for a network does not necessarily
> > have to be an organization capable of identifying an individual user
> > or customer.
> >
> > WHOIS is not a system for tracing IP addresses down to an individual
> user level,
> > not with IPv6, not with IPv4.
> Thanks for clearly stating this, Jimmy. This is largely my point with
> WHOIS as well, although I may not have expressed it clearly.
>
> Along the same lines, WHOIS is not Geolocation (as poorly as that
> technology works, frequently because it's partly or mostly built on
> WHOIS data to begin with). The registered place of business an
> assignment points to, which may be completely accurate for valid network
> contacts at a company headquarters, doesn't dictate satellite offices
> are at the same address, city, state or country which may make up 90% of
> the use of the entire allocation... just as one example. This is
> abundant in enterprises.
>
> -Vinny

+1 to Jimmy and Vinny, and going back to the OP. .. This is why the article
is poorly formed.  Whois evolution and practices are NOT a speedbump for
ipv6 deployment. Traceroute is likely more informative than whois. ...or
looking at a bgp as path... For both ipv4 and ipv6

You think whois traceability is a problem in ipv6?  It is nothing compared
to ipv4 CGN traceability challenges.... Which the article also mentions.

CB