From: Jim Fleming (jfleming_at_no.spam)
Date: Sat Nov 17 2001 - 20:35:28 PST
You might want to study "The IPv6 Privacy Problem".
http://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+Privacy+Problem
"IPv8 Addressing" solves that problem..."IPv8 Addressing in IPv6 Headers"
"IPv8 Addressing" with 128-bit IPv6 is [64 bits Site-ID][64 bits IPv8 Address]
[64 bits Site-ID]....2002:[IPv4]:0000
For...[64 bits IPv8 Address]...see http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
As for what people can do with your MAC address, there have been many
examples cited. One of the best, in my opinion, documented by one of the
Harvard law professors was his realization that he could buy a cheap lap-top
from someone, get on the NGI, and be viewed by web-site operators as the
previous owner, with all their profiles and habits tracked. Other people are
concerned that the MAC address can essentially describe the make and model
of the equipment, so web-site operators could start treating people different
depending on how much money they spent on their system, or when they
bought it. Novice Internet users might also be freaked out when some web
pop-up says, "Hello, how do you like your new Compact Impressio, purchased
in May at Better-Buy, is it performing as expected ?"....please call 976-555-1212
for information on the recall on that equipment. Naive users may say, "Wow,
how do they know what I have ?....I better call...."....and may enter a long and
winding road similar to....http://www.MajesticTheGame.com
OK, so now people have more brilliant ideas, as a fix, they want to embed
your children's home telephone number in the right-most 64-bits....wonderful....
Since you are taking your "final exam", you may not have children, and say "so what".
Well, sorry, some people find that IETF proposal more absurd than the IETF
MAC address proposal...
Getting down to the bits, others claim..."just put a random number in the right 64-bits".
OK, now you have made that field largely useless for routing, which was also the
case with the MAC-derived address. With the right 64-bits dead or random, you
have now reduced the IPv6 128-bit address field to 64 useful routing bits, and the
dominant transition routing plan calls for 2002:[IPv4]:0000 in the left 64-bits. That
deeds most of the useful, routable, IPv6 space to existing IPv4 owners (which they
of course like...see Fairness below....)...and it leaves the 16-bits of 0000 which may
be useful for them to manage at their site. With that, you have now expanded the
existing users address space by 16-bits. Some people do not find that to be enough,
especially those that want to be able to specify the 16-bit Port in their DNS AAAA
entry, which was never possible in the 32-bit DNS A records.
In summary, IPv6 is being boiled down, and transitioned in so many different ways,
that the term IPv6, ceases to have meaning. People seem to want to select all of the
features they like from different transition plans and lump them together and claim
that is the IPv6 they are talking about. In doing that, it becomes a big game, sort of
like the childrens game with the hammer and the little moles that pop up. It becomes
a never ending game of trying to pin people down to precisely what they mean. When
people finally sit down and draw a picture or try to make it all work, they realize the
mess they have. The IPv6 advocates of course wave their hands and say, don't
worry about all that, some vaporware routing daemon will manage your entire net
for you, you will not have to touch a thing. This of course gets the attention of the
clueless ISP owner who just wants to turn equipment on and sell packet transport
to paying customers.
None of this of course addresses the efficiency issues, and the fact that people are
going to be carrying 64 bits of personal ID or random number around TWICE in
each packet. Again, the hand-wavers will tell you that is not a problem because they
have another vaporware solution that will compress the bloated IPv6 header to
almost nothing. It will interesting to see how that turns out, especially with the
2002:[IPv4]:0000 prefix triggering an IPv4 header encapsulation. One could claim
that is not IPv6, but really IPv4, with a header extension. Plans like that were rejected
as not what the infamous "community" wanted [community being the dozen usual suspects].
As for being difficult to set-up, yes, clearly the people who do not support
"IPv8 Addressing in IPv6 Headers" are not going to make it easy to set-up.
Windows XP out of the box, builds the IPv6 addresses with the MAC address.
Either a bug or a "feature" makes it hard to change that. That is up to Microsoft
to fix. Microsoft clearly wants to only encourage one system to be used with the
6to4cfg utility setting up the GateKeeper, with 2002:[IPv4]::[IPv4], that again plays
well with the existing IPv4 owners, but does not do much for people who are tired
of the unfair IPv4 allocation policies and absurd taxes paid for someone keeping
a database of allocations. $25,000 for a block of IPv6 addresses ?....get real...
It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
or
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
JimFleming-at-Unir.com
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Mascré
To: ngtrans-at-sunroof.eng.sun.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: (ngtrans) To Jim Fleming
Hi jim, it is me again...
I have written an IPv6 crash course for my school final exam.
Two months later, I wanted to update my knowledge about that...
And I should precise that I was not lost on the subject...
but I was stucked when using google I was reading your
"IPv6 Privacy Concern" and starting laughing out loud
when I started to realize that it was totally crazy that
someone could deduce who was behind my screen
by just looking my IPv6 address...
But as you are claiming everywhere that IPv8/IPv16 could
solve the problem... I have had a doubt... Your reply
has cleared that point !
I conceed that your vision of galaxy is pretty cool and
that this idea can be re-used in a science fiction book,
but I think that NATs, proxies, and other adressing tricks
used by IPv4 are nothing compared to the difficulty of
setting up IPv8-routed networks.
I think too that "changing" the IPv4 header is uncool and not clean....
Notice that MAC addresses are used in link/site local addresses
that are not supposed to be routed...
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06)
Notice too that administrators that are aware of security concerns
will not always allow MAC addresses to be used publicly.... since
IP can be fixed or set up by DHCP servers...
After reflexion, the last sentence is silly.......
After all... what can you do with my MAC address ??
Sue me for having visiting your web site ??
Where is the privacy problem ??
I have many people using my computer... even if someone
does bad things with my MAC address, how can you be sure it was me
and not someone else ??
I have red many of the replies you have written on this list...
and I am not sure you have always correctly answered to the people...
They need a solution to implement an IPv6 solutions or understand
why it is sometimes better to keep either IPv4 or v6 ...
but your replies are almost always... "use IPv8".....
I think you should stop confusing people and start considering IPv6
as a clean solution to forget IPv4 tricks..... by not setting up a hack like
IPvX.
Damien.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jim Fleming [mailto:jfleming-at-anet.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 18 novembre 2001 00:18
À : Damien Mascré
Objet : Re: (ngtrans) lost about IPvX
Surely there must be a TLD here for you...
http://www.dot-biz.com/INFO/ROOT/
3:215 BALLOON
3:216 SVK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic))
3:217 DNK (DENMARK)
3:218 GRC (GREECE)
3:219 INFO
3:220 PUNK
3:221 SVN (SLOVENIA)
3:222 FLAT
3:223 STOCKHOLM
-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-ngtrans-at-sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ngtrans-at-sunroof.eng.sun.com]De la part de Jim Fleming
Envoyé : samedi 17 novembre 2001 22:28
À : Damien Mascré; ngtrans-at-sunroof.eng.sun.com
Objet : Re: (ngtrans) lost about IPvX
You can use "IPv8 Addressing".....with IPv6....
Address blocks are free to Address Space Managers (ASMs)
Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!
----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Mascré
To: ngtrans-at-sunroof.eng.sun.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: (ngtrans) lost about IPvX
Hello,
I am lost, there is IPv4, IPv6 and IPv8/16...
I know about all of them except IPv8/16 ... is it a standard, a kind of proposed draft ??
Is it used ??
Since many time ??
Thanks in advance,
Damien.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:26 PDT
