Request to participate in 2-min study survey on IPv6 Adoption
jay at west.net
Mon Jan 31 21:00:16 UTC 2022
On 1/30/22 17:06, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> For your consideration, there's one thing that's always overlooked.
> E.g. I've been talking once to a big employee of a large content
> provider, and that person told me they don't enable IPv6 because doing
> otherwise produces tons of comment spam.
This makes no sense at all, and is not my experience.
> The thing is, we have this spam problem. This is not really the
> "information security issue" you've mentioned, this is just a glimpse of
> a real issue.
> IPv6 is now cheap as chips. It's very dirty therefore. All kinds of
> bots, spammers, password brute force programs live in there, and it's
> significantly harder to correlate and ditch these with the sparse IPv6
> address space.
Then you're doing it wrong. With IPv6 don't drill down more granular
than a /64 when filtering.
> ISPs don't typically focus on these kinds of things but ISPs, speaking
> of large ones, are also typically champions in IPv6 deployment. It's
> usually content providers who don't do their stuff. And, as sad as it
> gets, it's not getting away any time soon since it's there for a reason.
Comment spam isn't a valid reason to avoid deploying IPv6. Not even
remotely close to one.
Jay Hennigan - jay at west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
More information about the NANOG