This is going to be one of the big things the US Federal govt requirements for agencies to meet the IPv6-only benchmarks will need. Solutions and products are going to have to mature quickly for agencies to hit 80% IPv6-only by end of FY25.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 4:38 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > > 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 > "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> 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. > > > >