OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Fri Jul 1 14:54:30 UTC 2005

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Just name a few:
> - Possibility to end-to-end IPSec.

exists in v4

> - Not feasible scanning of subnets remotely

eh... maybe, I'm not convinced this matters anyway.

> - Privacy enhanced addresses - not tracking usage based on addresses

dhcp can do this for you (v4 has mechanisms for this)

> - Better ingress filtering
>

right... because gear that filters so well in v4-land will filter so much
better in v6-land? you == crazy.

All those objections aside, I'd love to see v6 more fully deployed. I'm
not sure I see how it's going to get beyond 'research' or 'play' land,
except for some small cases, for quite some time. It's interesting that
the flood gates on ip space are openning at IANA though, that should
hasten the v6 takeup/deployment :)