Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 3/31/22 9:26 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 2022, at 20:51, Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
> >
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
> > So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
> > the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses are used
> > within the building, the problem of audit trail opacity is
> > suffered.
> >
> > Thank you very much to have proven IPv6 useless.
> >
> >                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
> No, the problem of address correlation to end user may still exist, but the address
> Is transparent. The address in log files at the apartment complex matches the address
> In log files at intervening networks matches the address in log files at the victim network.
>
> Obviously, if the apartment complex has no log files, then yes, it remains relatively useless
> In your one contrived corner case… That not being the more general and widely deployed
> Case, I think that calling that proof that IPv6 is worthless proves more about your inane
> Bias than anything else.

It's really quite something to see 30 year old grudges and foot stamping 
all because something in the distant past didn't happen in their 
preferred way. It's nearly impossible to even know what the preferred 
way actually was because, you know, grudge. I started a thread on what 
that might be and it was singularly uninformative about what they 
consider wrong. I'm going to go on a limb and say that an apartment 
building not logging something sinking 30 years of work and deployment 
is a little, um, yeah.

Mike