From: Tom Lohdan (ipv6_at_no.spam)
Date: Sun Nov 18 2001 - 00:19:51 PST
At 10:35 PM 17/11/2001 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
>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.
No difference to cookies or spy-ware, which exist in todays IPv4 format,
and exist in IPv"whatever" in the future.
> 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.
Irrelevant. A NIC can work under multiple OS's, and could have it installed
in a 386. The Website owner knows nothing but the type of NIC you have.
>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
Scare tactic's, seen many times by people pushing a cause for monetary reasons.
>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...
Unplug yourself from the Internet if you wish to remain private, there are
things such as Proxies and SecureNAT's which will protect your information
and are available today under IPv4.
>Getting down to the bits, others claim..."just put a random number in the
>right 64-bits".
Yes so DDoS people can not be traced.
>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.
2002 is not the end of IPv6 address space.
>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.
Irrelevant. You are telling people what to do with the address space they
have been allocated. Chances of people following that plan, unlikely unless
it is made part of their uplink requirements.
>In summary, IPv6 is being boiled down, and transitioned in so many
>different ways,
>that the term IPv6, ceases to have meaning.
IPv6 has always had meaning, more than your fictitious IPv8 becoming FACT.
>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.
If it was up to the children we would still be using IPX, Irrelevant yet again.
>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.
How many IPv4 existing Networks are a mess already? and it is not due to
the address space. Irrelevant, yet again.
>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.
Actually, you are trying to sell IPv8 to the "so called Clueless" be
careful you call a clueless ISP owner.
>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.
Cookies will kill your privacy in a second. Irrelevant, yet again.
>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].
2002:: is not the end of IPv6 address space, Irrelevant, yet again.
>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...
IP address space will always cost money, as much as people would like it
not to, it does, and is a fact of running any commercial business, your
factor the cost in to your day to day runnings. Your beefs with MS, take it
up with them, everyone I know is happy with the stack, it's only the lack
of application support that bugs them.
>It all boils down to fairness.
>Which list do you think is more fair ?
I think it would be more fair if you put together your case and presented
it on your website in your own words, rather than spraying us with links.
Jim you have a mind that is capable of grasping IPv6, write some stuff up
and put it on your website. Point ing people to other sites, will not prove
your mission.
Thanks,
Tom...
----- 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.
IPv6 News & Links
http://hs247.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:26 PDT
