It is weird to call this 'IPv6 Only'. Connectivity to the IPv4 internet is still provided. It is just that to talk IPv4 you have to go through a couple of complex translation steps.
Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
11–20 of 112 posts
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#12Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)?
With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime?
While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#13Looking at mechanisms like 464XLAT, why are these currently favored over DS-Lite [1]? To me DS-Lite seems like a simple and elegant solution if you don't have a lot of public IPv4 addresses, 464XLAT looks much more compilcated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism#Dual...
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#14Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.
Some ISP provide a different IPv6 at each connection (to sell static IPv6 at higher price). Other ISP provide a /56, which means, you can shuffle on a lot of /64 on your own.
Morevover, there is the privacy extension for IPv6 that change the local part of the IPv6 at regular interval to avoid tracing.
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#15Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.
In the worst case the ISP will give you a /64 prefix which you can complete to form an IPv6 address via SLAAC. Operating systems will generate many different temporary addresses with a short lifetime and use those for outbound connections to reduce tracking.
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#16Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.
You should have a look at the IPv6 privacy extensions. IPv6 doesn't work as you think it does. Your devices use temporary IPs even with a static IPv6 prefix.
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#17I just wish IPV6 was mostly about adding more bits to the addresses instead of the clusterfuck that they introduced.
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#18Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.
You should have a look at the IPv6 privacy extensions. IPv6 doesn't work as you think it does. Your devices use temporary IPs even with a static IPv6 prefix.
Can't trackers just map the prefix to your id, or do many users share a prefix? will look it up...
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#19Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.
The short version is: No. Not reasonable.
v6 isn't easier to track. Some of the trackability from v4 remains, some goes away. As an example of the latter, if you go to a café with a wlan and stay for an hour, your laptop may use three different v6 addresses in that time.
Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]
#20I just wish IPV6 was mostly about adding more bits to the addresses instead of the clusterfuck that they introduced.
the "clusterfuck" the introduced is mostly a nice thing in my opinion.
Things like MTU path-discovery, NDP and SLAAC make a lot of sense and are definitely improvements over the solutions we have in IPv4. Broadcast makes little sense on a layer 3 perspective. The use of link-local and unique-global addresses also makes sense, and having a different address class for multicast makes implementing multicast more convenient.