Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

["Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling
"improved security measures", not me, dude. :-)

I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded
by v6 proponents have effectively been retro-fitted to v4,
thereby negating almost every v6 migration argument, with
the exception of a larger host address pool.

Equally dumbfounded in v4-land,

- ferg



-- "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com> wrote:

>    over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional
>    advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and
>    additional links for wireless devices.

which 'security measures' are included in ipv6? which additional links for
wireless devices?

This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for
the implementations not the protocol itself)  than v4. I could be wrong,
but I'm just not seeing any 'inherent security' in v6, and selling it that
way is just a bad plan.

-dazed and confused in ipv4-land.

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/