Posted on 01/03/2005 1:58:51 PM PST by FreeMarket1
Good read for later!
Speaking as someone in the networking business -- would it be fair for me to summarize that this huge alarmist article that no one will read carefully is basically complaining that IPv6 doesn't require you to use NAT?
Nice notion, only NAT and DHCP were never intended as privacy measures, they were band-aids to cover the festering inadequacies of the IPv4 protocol in the realm of scalability and management.
Interesting. For later read.
Internet2 Ping
The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!
Let me restate my understanding of the article.
With the current IPv4, you trust someone to sell you a box that implements NAT software that blocks outside people from accessing your private machines. If you want outside people to access your stuff, you configure the NAT software to allow a specific connection to go through.
In the future, with IPv6, you will trust someone to sell you a box that implements firewall software tha blocks outside people from accessing your private machines. If you want outside people to access your stuff, you configure the firewall software to allow a specific connection to go through.
There is absolutely no interest among U.S. internet service providers in implementing IPv6. There are efforts in places like Japan and China to push it out, but they are going to take a long time. I wouldn't bet you'll see any significant deployment of IPv6 in the United States before 2010.
Read later BUMPMARK
Your current IP address explicitly identifies you -- if ISPs wished to keep that many logs. Try sending something unpleasant to president@whitehouse.gov and see how long it takes the feds to visit with cattle prods.
The primary purpose of IPV6/NG is to create more potential IP addresses/concurrent connections.
cisco's been toolen around with ipv6 routers/switches since before last year so their ready to deploy. I'm sure they've even made nifty little black boxes that can go from ipv6 to ipv4 at some infinate cost ;)
A better technology than NAT and DHCP is a VPN (virtual private network). I would guess that it's use will increase with IPv6 and will take care of all of the problems this author foresees.
All we got to do is get "IPV6" classified as 'spyware' and it will be dead in the water.
FYI
Most PCs support IPv6 (Windows XP & Mac OS X all have native support. Most network gear supports IPv6 (e.g. routers), but only for software-based forwarding. Hardware-based forwarding is not yet available, meaning that while you can run IPv6 in a production network, you can't run it at the same scale as you can with IPv4. In addition, most firewalls, DHCP servers, mail servers, and other support servers aren't yet IPv6 capable.
The biggest obstacle to IPv6 deployment is that they haven't figure out yet how to allow folks to connect to multiple ISPs. There are still a lot of hurdles to overcome, and of course the biggest hurdle is that nobody has figure out how to make any money with it yet.
I'm reading it the same way as you are... this guy is afraid that switching technology to IPv6 will somehow do away with firewall devices. His misguided point seems to be that because there will be enough IP addresses that NAT and therefore private addressing will not be needed.
Obviously to the author(LOL), the only reason people buy firewalls is for NATing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.