Re: Request to participate in 2-min study survey on IPv6 Adoption

["J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

That's just plain as* bullsh** right there.

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Jan 30, 2022, at 19:09, Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera () gmail com> wrote:
>
> 
> Peace,
>
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:38 PM Smahena Amakran <smahenamakran () gmail com> wrote:
> > For my studies, I am researching IPv6 adoption.
>
>
> For your consideration, there's one thing that's always overlooked.
>
> E.g. I've been talking once to a big employee of a large content provider, and that person told me they don't enable 
> IPv6 because doing otherwise produces tons of comment spam.
>
> The thing is, we have this spam problem. This is not really the "information security issue" you've mentioned, this 
> is just a glimpse of a real issue.
>
> IPv6 is now cheap as chips. It's very dirty therefore. All kinds of bots, spammers, password brute force programs 
> live in there, and it's significantly harder to correlate and ditch these with the sparse IPv6 address space.
>
> ISPs don't typically focus on these kinds of things but ISPs, speaking of large ones, are also typically champions in 
> IPv6 deployment.  It's usually content providers who don't do their stuff.  And, as sad as it gets, it's not getting 
> away any time soon since it's there for a reason.
>
> --
> Töma