Live data from Hacker News

Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

pc.nanog.org

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#81

Is 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.

My IPv4 lease has been static for the past several months. It very rarely changes; I would have to spoof a MAC address on my WAN router to get it to change.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#82
post #21

Is 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.

No, it's not reasonable. Allocation of IPv4 address by your ISP is not a secure process; if your privacy depends on it your privacy is already compromised. And address allocation policy is independent of which protocol you're using anyway.

As an example, until about a month ago the reverse DNS of the IPv4 address my ISP assigned to me resolved to [modem-mac-address].large-isp.countrycode

The forward DNS still exists, and is useful (I have a CNAME pointing to it), but the reverse DNS was probably just a convenient but privacy-leaking configuration that was noticed while preparing for GDPR.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#83
post #49

On my home network, all my device have IPv6. Unfortunately, it not native IPv6: the AT&T LTE device I use for my home internet doesn't support IPv6. (Why LTE? It's a long story- I frequently travel, and I take my connection with me. Comcast doesn't make much sense. LTE latency and bandwidth are good enough) Anyway, whenever I get a server, I make sure IPv6 is supported. No IPv6, no business from me -- even for a VPS.…

> I can always ssh to any of my machines (or the VMs) from anywhere. It's just simpler. Exposing an sshd to the public internet seems very risky. IPv6 or not. Even with v6 in your LAN, you probably still want the firewall to drop all incoming connections and then use some kind of VPN or bastion host to get inside

disable password authentication, ssh keys are secure enough

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#84
post #36

Is 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.

> Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? no. If an ISP assigns you a dynamic prefix and the various machines in your network use any one of the various privacy features like temporary addresses then the only additional information you leak is some information about how many devices are in your LAN, but as the devices make up additional addresses,…

> no. If an ISP assigns you a dynamic prefix

oppressive regimes will assign people static IPv6 prefixes tied with their legal identities.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#85
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can always ssh to any of my machines (or the VMs) from anywhere. It's just simpler. Exposing an sshd to the public internet seems very risky. IPv6 or not. Even with v6 in your LAN, you probably still want the firewall to drop all incoming connections and then use some kind of VPN or bastion host to get inside

disable password authentication, ssh keys are secure enough

would you rather emergency security patch opensshd on 10 machines or one bastion host?

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#86
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? no. If an ISP assigns you a dynamic prefix and the various machines in your network use any one of the various privacy features like temporary addresses then the only additional information you leak is some information about how many devices are in your LAN, but as the devices make up additional addresses,…

> no. If an ISP assigns you a dynamic prefix oppressive regimes will assign people static IPv6 prefixes tied with their legal identities.

oppressive regimes will assign people static IPv4 addresses tied with their legal identities.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#87
post #48
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? no. If an ISP assigns you a dynamic prefix and the various machines in your network use any one of the various privacy features like temporary addresses then the only additional information you leak is some information about how many devices are in your LAN, but as the devices make up additional addresses,…

You can get static IPv6 from Fiber7.

I know. And they even delegate the ip6.arpa domain so you can do reverse lookups with your own DNS server.

source: I'm fiber7 customer since 2014 and they offered me to do the delegation when I asked them for the static prefix.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#89

Is 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.

My IPv4 lease has been static for the past several months. It very rarely changes; I would have to spoof a MAC address on my WAN router to get it to change.

you don't have to spoof, just leave the WAN device off around the time when your dhcp lease expires. When you come back online, you'll find you have a new lease with likely a new address.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#90
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no. If an ISP assigns you a dynamic prefix oppressive regimes will assign people static IPv6 prefixes tied with their legal identities.

oppressive regimes will assign people static IPv4 addresses tied with their legal identities.

If IPv4 pools and carrier-grade IPv4 NATs spreads all over the network, a user's identity is revealed to the oppressive regimes in primarily two ways:

a) IP pool logging, requires a known IP address and time.

b) NAT logging, requires a known IP address, outgoing port number, and time.

It means the cost of tracking users is moderate to ISPs and authorities, also, for a random observer without access to internal records, a IPv4 user is effectively pseudonymous to the city-level until enough information is revealed.

But if the oppressive regimes really assign assign people static IPv6 prefixes tied with their legal identities intentionally, without any type of privacy extension, it would mean after I use my network connection for a while...

__everyone on the Internet, not just ISPs, can track my activity, possibility tied with my legal identity.__

I'm well aware of the existence of mass surveillance on IPv4, and I'm not advocating IPv4 for a false sense of security, I'm all for IPv6. But this is a true issue for consideration. Using a VPN, or Tor for day-to-day web browsing is the only practical solution to this problem I can think of...

On the other hand, IPv6 will bring end-to-end communications back to the Internet and revive P2P. To that day, perhaps a P2P-based, full mesh, optionally anonymous network will become practical. To this extent, IPv6 does more good than harm.

Post reply on HN