IPv6 "bloat"
Michael Thomas
mike at mtcc.com
Sat Mar 19 23:03:09 UTC 2022
On 3/19/22 3:56 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/22 6:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 3/19/22 3:47 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>>> It has "features" which are at a minimum problematic and at a
>>> maximum show stoppers for network operators.
>>>
>>> IPv6 seems like it was designed to be a private network
>>> communication stack, and how an ISP would use and distribute it was
>>> a second though.
>>
>> What might those be? And it doesn't seem to be a show stopper for a
>> lot of very large carriers.
>
> Primarily the ability to end-to-end authenticate end devices. The
> primary and largest glaring issue is that DHCPv6 from the client does
> not include the MAC address, it includes the (I believe) UUID.
>
> We have to sniff the packets to figure out the MAC so that we can
> authenticate the client and/or assign an IP address to the client
> properly.
>
> It depends how you're managing the network. If you're running PPPoE
> you can encapsulate in that. But PPPoE is very 1990 and has its own
> set of problems. For those running encapsulated traffic,
> authentication to the modem MAC via DHCP that becomes broken. And
> thus far, I have not seen a solution offered to it.
I was honestly more interested in the bloat angle, but this sounds like
a backend problem of your own making most likely. But I'm not motivated
to see if it's actually the case or just a misunderstanding.
>
>
> Secondly - and less importantly to deployment, IPv6 also provides a
> layer of problematic tracking for advertisers. Where as before many
> devices were behind a PAT, now every device has a unique ID --
> probably for the life of the device. Marketers can now pinpoint down
> not just to an IP address that identifies a single NAT interface, but
> each individual device. This is problematic from a data collection
> standpoint.
I guess you've not heard of privacy addresses. Or DHCPv6.
Mike
More information about the NANOG
mailing list