IPv6 "bloat"

Matt Hoppes mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net
Sat Mar 19 22:56:25 UTC 2022

On 3/19/22 6:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 3/19/22 3:47 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> It has "features" which are at a minimum problematic and at a maximum 
>> show stoppers for network operators.
>> IPv6 seems like it was designed to be a private network communication 
>> stack, and how an ISP would use and distribute it was a second though.
> What might those be? And it doesn't seem to be a show stopper for a lot 
> of very large carriers.

Primarily the ability to end-to-end authenticate end devices.   The 
primary and largest glaring issue is that DHCPv6 from the client does 
not include the MAC address, it includes the (I believe) UUID.

We have to sniff the packets to figure out the MAC so that we can 
authenticate the client and/or assign an IP address to the client properly.

It depends how you're managing the network.  If you're running PPPoE you 
can encapsulate in that.   But PPPoE is very 1990 and has its own set of 
problems.  For those running encapsulated traffic, authentication to the 
modem MAC via DHCP that becomes broken.  And thus far, I have not seen a 
solution offered to it.

Secondly - and less importantly to deployment, IPv6 also provides a 
layer of problematic tracking for advertisers.  Where as before many 
devices were behind a PAT, now every device has a unique ID -- probably 
for the life of the device. Marketers can now pinpoint down not just to 
an IP address that identifies a single NAT interface, but each 
individual device.  This is problematic from a data collection standpoint.

More information about the NANOG mailing list