Request to participate in 2-min study survey on IPv6 Adoption

Jay Hennigan jay at
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
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

More information about the NANOG mailing list