Lee Bandy on IPv6 | Duncan Mackenzie

Tom Servo
W-hat?

Kerberos Mansour wrote:
Am I the only one here who feels intimidated by the security implications of this thing?
I'm not so concerned with firewalling as much as I am with the trojians and backdoors that can exploit this tech...

Anyways time will tell!

Trojans and backdoors can be made work even behind a NAT. They usually run a mini IRC client that logs them onto an IRC network to be controlled. If not that, it'll use a different way to be made available. Hell, there were even trojans with their own TCP/IP stack to circumvent some firewalls. NATs give a false sense of security.

An rather simple avantage of IPv6 is that the host part of the address is 64bit large. And because the host address is either the MAC or a random number, this makes simple scanning for vulnerable hosts virtually impossible.

An exploiting virus a la Blaster could still try to reach other machines by using neighbor discovery, which would however just limit it to your local prefix, and maybe the destination cache, which will allow it to identify external hosts, but still not give it the means of mass infection. The destination cache would be in most cases however mainly hardened and/or invulnerable internet servers and a couple of addresses of active IM sessions. All in all, it would slow down such viruses a lot.

Generally, I think we'd be better off with an IPv6 network. Also, it'd speed up routing because the tables would be way smaller. IPsec in it isn't a cheap hack either.

dotnetjunkie

Whalewatcher wrote:

It is happening, but you gotta give it some time (just like all other converging markets, without immediate benefit).

Most Routers, IP Phones etc.. already have the capability, because all it really depends on is the IP stack of the OS those devices run on. (and most do support it)
If a stack and the belonging API know that, it really isn't that much of a deal to it, whether it's ip4 or ipv6.

This usually means a simple firmware update.

The web interfaces need redesigning as well...

I know it's happening, but it's happening far too slow, and only a company like MS can do something about that!!! Smiley

St. Anger

Hi,

about the mp4 conversation, does any one know a free converter? I mean wmv 2 mp4 converter. I own a Samsung d820 mobile phone and unfortunately it only plays mp4 videos.

Tzim

I think it's difficult to have an interresting discution about networking technologies.

The end-user , or even the developper, doesn't want to care about how it works. It just has to.

IPv6 has a great potential, removing all the burdens from NATs. And the transition have to happen in the next few years, due to IPv4 address space depletion.

I use the term transition, 'cause I dislike migration. We wont switch from IPv4 to IPv6, as the two protocols may cohabit for maybe more than 10 years.

So 6to4 and teredo should be called transition technologies instead of migration technologies. Technologies that I don't like much. Using third-party servers, which aren't many, IPv4 service is, most of the time, better.

That's why, currently, ISV doesn't really want to use IPv6 for their apps. Without apps, ISPs doesn't really want to deploy native IPv6 (or at least, servers for the transition technologies) in their networks. The classical chicken and egg problem. Furthermore, windows doesn't support IPv6 by default, yet.

Now enters vista. IPv6 at the same place as IPv4, enabled by default. That will help, I think (and I hope).

avato

when is ip6 coming up, so that we will use this at home?
-----------------------------------------------

Suchmaschinenoptimierung