> On Mar 20, 2022, at 07:17, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe <l...@6by7.net> > wrote: > > 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.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re viewing this from a service provider perspective, in which case everything you’ve said is basically correct. However, the enterprise world is very different. Right, wrong, or otherwise, many enterprises feel a strong compulsion to have very strict control over addressing and relatively direct accountability of “x address = y employee” (regardless of whether that’s actually true or not). In those environments, yes, IPv6 does present a learning curve and some additional challenges. They are not insurmountable and if you were starting from scratch needing to build your enterprise on IPv6, it would actually be less difficult than IPv4. IPv4, however, has the advantage of well trodden paths for enterprise solutions in this space. IPv6 will get there as more enterprises start to deploy IPv6, but right now both sides of that process suffer from the classic chicken/egg problem. The problem is slow to get solved because there are no chickens asking for a solution. Chickens aren’t asking for it because there are no eggs to create chickens that need IPv6. Owen > > -LB > > Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE > 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC > CEO > b...@6by7.net <mailto:b...@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 <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net >> <mailto:mattli...@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. >> >
