[LAC-TF] Stick to limited IPv6 deployments
Carlos M. martinez
carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 11:43:22 BRT 2012
I agree with Alejandro... I believe we are creating (unintentionally due
to the misquoting or partial quoting Marc mentioned) a lot of FUD that
is certainly not helping.
I'm past believing that security trumps everything, I do believe
security must balance risks and benefits. The most secure systems are
those who are offline, but, well, except for some very niche uses, they
are not that useful.
If you are Daimler then the point made in the article is probably right.
However, how many companies out there are like Daimler ? Probably not
more than 5% of all companies out there.
If you are _not_ like Daimler (or Google, or EADS) in terms of being an
attractive target, then you stand to gain more from deploying IPv6 and
getting your hands dirty with a new technology than from keeping your
head under the sand.
However, this side of things tends to get lost in the noise.
We are past the point where the fears that turning IPv6 would 'break'
things were justified. This is not true anymore (it may have been in the
past though). What remains now is the fear of security issues, which for
some becomes the perfect excuse to continue postponing necessary work
and necessary investment.
On 8/23/12 11:28 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this article.
> I just read it and I also personally disagree.
> In someway I understand the position of disabling (or not turning
> on) IPv6 in some parts of your network but if we have done that 20
> years ago there wouldn't be Internet right now, and based on the
> reasons he mentions in the article we should turn off IPv4 now :), you
> can sniff an IPv4 network, you can have rogue DHCPv4, you can do arp
> poisoning and many others attacks (just mentioning the same ones that
> appear in the article).
> In my personal perspective I think the bottom line of the article is
> that by itself IPv6 does not mean security.
> On 8/23/12, Carlos M. martinez <carlosm3011 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Read it, I didn't like it very much (but, well, just IMO)
>> On 8/23/12 10:21 AM, Luis Carlos Solano wrote:
>>> Me gustó mucho este artículo, muy enfocado en algo que en lo personal
>>> considero súper importante: no poner IPv6 donde no se necesita (por
>> LACTF mailing list
>> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
> LACTF mailing list
> lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org
More information about the LACTF