OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Thu Jun 30 21:07:15 UTC 2005

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>
> The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling
> "improved security measures", not me, dude. :-)
>

the soap comment was aimed at you for the tom davis 'support' :) I
understood you didn't write the other parts.

> 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.
>

Yup, the retrofit has made all arguements (except: "Hey, look, my network
is cooler than yours! it's newer!", and 'more space to ruin^H^H^H^Huse')

> Equally dumbfounded in v4-land,
>
> - ferg
>
>
>
> -- "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow at 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 at netzero.net or fergdawg at sbcglobal.net
>  ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
>