nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 "bloat"
From: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe <lb () 6by7 net>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 07:17:41 -0700
It seems sketchy to me to even retain client MAC information, no? Genuine question. Didn’t we go to a distinct unique identifier system for this very reason? Am I in the 1990s here or? We’re just handing out addresses to UEs and things seem to work fine. For me personally, I find the notation of v6 to be very unasthetic, so I tend to just conceal it from myself now. -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben () 6by7 net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ
On Mar 19, 2022, at 3:56 PM, Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net> wrote: On 3/19/22 6:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:On 3/19/22 3:47 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:It has "features" which are at a minimum problematic and at a maximum show stoppers for network operators. IPv6 seems like it was designed to be a private network communication stack, and how an ISP would use and distribute it was a second though.What might those be? And it doesn't seem to be a show stopper for a lot of very large carriers.Primarily the ability to end-to-end authenticate end devices. The primary and largest glaring issue is that DHCPv6 from the client does not include the MAC address, it includes the (I believe) UUID. We have to sniff the packets to figure out the MAC so that we can authenticate the client and/or assign an IP address to the client properly. It depends how you're managing the network. If you're running PPPoE you can encapsulate in that. But PPPoE is very 1990 and has its own set of problems. For those running encapsulated traffic, authentication to the modem MAC via DHCP that becomes broken. And thus far, I have not seen a solution offered to it. Secondly - and less importantly to deployment, IPv6 also provides a layer of problematic tracking for advertisers. Where as before many devices were behind a PAT, now every device has a unique ID -- probably for the life of the device. Marketers can now pinpoint down not just to an IP address that identifies a single NAT interface, but each individual device. This is problematic from a data collection standpoint.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 "bloat", (continued)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Enno Rey (Mar 20)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Tom Beecher (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Michael Thomas (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Matt Hoppes (Mar 19)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe (Mar 20)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 20)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Crist Clark (Mar 20)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 21)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" history William Allen Simpson (Mar 22)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" history Masataka Ohta (Mar 22)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" history William Allen Simpson (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" history William Allen Simpson (Mar 25)
- Re: IPv6 "bloat" history Masataka Ohta (Mar 28)