Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

Post by dvfjsdhgfv » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 12:58 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #109

grandinj wrote: post #20

What we should take away from the IPv6 debacle is a fine lesson in hubris. I was hanging out in the IPv6 mailing lists at the time the various solutions were being debated. The prevailing attitude was "the Internet is about to die from routing overload without IPv6, so we can stick whatever complexity we want inside it, and they will have no choice but to accept it." Except that new router hardware and new incrementa…

> Instead we have this baroque construction, which I _still_ have to explicitly disable in my work environment because various bits of supposedly IPV6 software don't play nice together. Most security-conscious people do the same.

Post by noinsight » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 2:04 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #103

MR4D wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said! I was in the camp hoping for two octects at the beginning of the address (so they could be zeroes). Actually, a single i text would have taken us to a trillion IPs and given us enough time to think about the topic a bit more. Large changes rarely succeed. Perl 6, Mozilla (back in the 1990’s) and others come to mind. This is hard stuff, and we were made to swallow the kitchen sink.

So, what are the changes in IPv6 other than change in address size that hinder adoption?

Post by throwaway2048 » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #122

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead we have this baroque construction, which I _still_ have to explicitly disable in my work environment because various bits of supposedly IPV6 software don't play nice together. Most security-conscious people do the same.

To the downvoters: I'd be curious to read your counter-arguments. To start the discussion - "NATO cybersecurity bods warn about transition to new protocol": > What's the solution? According to the authors, nothing short of a wholesale review of how network traffic is interpreted. Sysadmins need to look at how their security systems are configured to make sure they pick up any unusual traffic flows made using this tec…

Post by yardstick » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

okket wrote: post #121

4ad wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine for some scenarios, but in general for my use cases, I wouldn't, because most often I want my VMs to be accessible from the Internet.

At this point I'd argue your case is a bit special and you may need special arrangements. If it is that critical for you to have a gazillion of IoT devices and untrusted VMs accessible from the internet via IPv6, get a /48 tunnel from he.net

Post by dvfjsdhgfv » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 2:41 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #126

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the downvoters: I'd be curious to read your counter-arguments. To start the discussion - "NATO cybersecurity bods warn about transition to new protocol": > What's the solution? According to the authors, nothing short of a wholesale review of how network traffic is interpreted. Sysadmins need to look at how their security systems are configured to make sure they pick up any unusual traffic flows made using this tec…

The fact that network security software dosent support ipv6, so ipv6 is an inherent risk is sort of a vaccuous statement, it also wouldnt support whatever replaced ipv4 either.