nanog mailing list archives

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")


From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:19:01 -0700


On Oct 3, 2015, at 14:01 , William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Scott Morizot <tmorizot () gmail com> wrote:
One of the points in having 64 bits reserved for the host
portion of the address is that you never need to think or worry about
individual addresses

Well, that turned out to be a farce. Instead of worrying about running
out of addresses on the lan, you have to worry about other people
tracking your mobile users through their static 64 bit tail (SLAAC) or
having trouble internally tracking your users (privacy extensions).
Give me the straightforward problem over the subtle one any time.

Both of these are solved through network-hashed persistent IPv6 privacy addresses.

Owen


Current thread: