Hi Rich:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Rich3800 wrote:
> I would like to know what my IPv6 options would be for my network
> configuration. My network is made up of 2 PCs : my PC is running SuSE
> linux professional 7.3 (but Red Hat 7.3 can also be installed), it is
> a Pentium III desktop with 320 Mb RAM and a 40 Gb hard drive, the othe
> PC is a Dell laptop running Windows 98 SE. The network configuration
> is: Internet service comes in from Cablevision in Connecticut, comes
> in by DHCP protocol to a Motorola SB4200 cable modem, which is
> connected to a Speedstream 2602 NAT server/firewall, which is split
> into 2 connections, one wired for the desktop and the other to a US
> Robotics wireless router connecting wirelessly to the laptop. I want
> to run a publicly accessible IPv6/IPv4 Zope web server and I read that
> it is very hard to do if behind NAT.
My name is Joe Baptista and I'm doing an article for circleID on IPv6,
http://www.circleid.com/
and would like to interview you from the home users perspective.
I've attached some notes. And you can find my two prior articles online
at the following locations:
http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
and
http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp
I would like to get your view on some notes i've been making. Please feel
free to repond in brief or detail to my notes. As a potential home user
for the technology I'd like your opinions. Pro or con - good or bad.
That is if you agree to be interviewed ;)
Here's what I think [-)
IPv6 registration fees remind me of an MLM (Multi-Level Marketing)
project established by the registries to be money generators. It's my
position that if IPv6 has to take off a number of factors will have to be
addressed. And one of the pressing factors is fees. I assume your
Organization has the standard /32 initial IPv6 allocation (or more) and
that the annual fee of $2,500 (US) applies.
I know a /32 can give you a lot of /48 so the cost is peanuts to
the end user maybe ? but still my concern is that IPv6 can be used by
many organizations and individuals to build permanent infrastructure and
that this fee based system simply can't be rationalized. The bulk of
infrastructure routing is performed by various upstreams not ARIN or IANA.
I think this is highway robbery by IANA and friends. At best the
registries in my opinion provide reverse resolution and that does not cost
$2,500 per /48. At best $6.00 a year will provide enough for reverse
resolution.
Because of routing issues they can't even get the allocations back
so i'm sure many would pay fees and never bother paying again. David
Conrad at ARIN admitted as much recently in conferences. The registries I
see now require a contractual obligation from the IPv4 and IPv6 operators
as a means of securing their right to have the allocation returned.
It's my position that infrastructure, be it IPv4 or IPv6, is a
valuable means of assigning fixed infrastructure to internet assets
(servers, etc.). Any technician who knows the horror of renumbering can
attest to that. Unfortunately these fees will make it very difficult for
many non profits or persons to aquire infrastructure.
Another concern I have involves the complete lack of advertising
and marketing efforts behind IPv6. I am speaking specifically with
respect to major corporations. Why has the public not been notifed of
IPv6 as an option in new releases like Microsoft Windows XP.
I think Microsoft and any other corporation with a stake in IPv6
should be marketing it to death. Finally the user has the power to become
their own ISP and broker connections into the IPv6 cloud through various
providers across the entire network.
A good marketing campaign will generate user interest in
infrastructure andforce isp's to begin offering IPv6 services to their
users. I think tunnel brokers are doing an excellent job to fill in the
cracks - but even the ipv6forum has no quick list of providers available
and in my opinion it should and the providers should be listed on it. Has
anything been done in the marketing arena by the major players?
Maybe i'm being too bitchy with my concerns and these things will
iron themselves out. Im sure you can provide a better opinion then I can.
I'm also concerned about security. IPv6 I think provides adequate
privacy to the end user especially if the end users system supports RFC
3041 and the transactions are performed through tunnel brokers. Security
however I think is still in the early stages. I've seen a lot of security
protocols which were deamed insecure over time and the basic problem seems
to be the fact that the original internet was designed around trust
factors more then security issues.
I'm also concerned that tunnel brokers may not have considered
spamers using IPv6 tunnels as a means of masking their origins through
tunnel brokers. Is this a problem you can see affecting the business of a
tunnel broker? My concerns are the overhead of technical or abuse
support. This sort of problem has happened to Freenet6 in montreal. And
I'm curious if it's been a problem to you (IPv6 tunnel brokers).
I've also spoken with a security expert who agrees with me that
IPv6 could be abused for launching DDOS attacks. He pointed out many Unix
and Windows boxes are heavily firewalled in IPv4, but not in IPv6. If you
happen to be on their local link (hello wireless) one can circumvent the
IPv4 access restrictions for services that are v6-enabled. He speculates
it may be the case that owners often don't even know the box is doing v6.
These are just some of my concerns. Please feel free to address
them in details or ask question if you want me to explain my conerns in
detail.
Regards
Joe Baptista
# EOF
Cheers
Joe Baptista
--
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
