IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale]

Timothy Morizot tmorizot at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 12:42:07 UTC 2014

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Monday, March 24, 2014 01:37:52 AM Timothy Morizot wrote:
> > Yes. As I said, same general sorts of risks for the most
> > part as in IPv4. Details differ, but same general types.
> > My point was that it's mostly FUD to wave the flag of
> > scary new security weaknesses with no mitigations in
> > IPv6. It's the same general sort of first hop and link
> > security issues that exist in IPv4 with similar
> > mitigations. Not identical, but not radically different
> > or new either.
> While the mitigations may not exist yet (like proper
> firewalls in CPE to protect GUA'ed devices in the home), it
> still a good idea to bring the risks to light so folk can
> think about how to get them fixed.
While I don't really disagree with that statement, I'm not entirely sure
what CPE firewalls and home devices have to do with enterprise deployments,
the topic I was discussing. We've been actively working this for the past
three years now and have yet to encounter an IPv6 specific enterprise risk
for which no appropriate mitigation exists. That's why I called out the
assertion that security weaknesses in IPv6 were *preventing* enterprise
deployments as FUD. And until someone specifically names some major
unmitigated IPv6-only security weakness blocking enterprise deployment
instead of vague hand-waving or lists of security risks (as opposed to
weaknesses) with well-defined mitigations, I'll stand by that statement.


More information about the NANOG mailing list