[AusNOG] Apple say "biasing towards IPv6 is now beneficial for our customers"

[Mark Smith]

On 14 Jul 2015 6:45 pm, "Peter Fern" <ausnog at 0xc0dedbad.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/14/2015 18:22, Mark Smith wrote:
> > So I think Lorenzo's objection is specifically about stateful address
> > assignment via DHCPv6 because it doesn't actually solve the problem
> > people think it does - to have a database of attached devices for
> > security purposes. DHCPv6 or DHCPv4 won't have a record of attackers
> > devices that are configured with static addresses. In the case of
> > IPv6, DHCPv6 won't have a record of hosts' link-local addresses
> > either. An attacker will have control of their machine, so they'll
> > very easily ignore the M flag in RAs (indicating to use DHCPv6 for
> > addresses), or more simply, sniff but not process RAs, so they know
> > the network's subnets and can configure a static address and static
> > default gateway if necessary.
>
> Sure, I get this - if that's the only reason people think they want to
> deploy IPv6, then they're doing it wrong(tm).  But this is not the only
> reason to choose DHCPv6 as your addressing mechanism - stuff like
> options support so that you can push TFTP etc, central address
> management, GSS-TSIG, whatever.  The point is that people are free to
> choose the mechanism that they've decided is right for their network,
> whatever their reasoning.
>
> > If you truly want a database of attached devices, you need to be
> > recording IPv6 neighbor cache contents, IPv4 ARP cache contents or
> > later two FDB contents. Then, in the case of IPv6, the address
> > configuration method (static, SLAAC, DHCPv6) doesn't matter.
> >
> > And if your truly want to control and record both the identities of
> > the devices and the *people* behind then (which includes potential
> > attackers), you authenticate them at layer 2, using e.g. 802.1X.
> >
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > BTW, I think Lorenzo is being rational. Being "religious" is objecting
> > to something different just because it is different.
> >
>
> Except that Lorenzo really can't dictate how operators are going to
> configure their networks,

Actually "he"/Google/Apple/Microsoft/etc. can, because they're in control
of the devices and more specifically the user interface and user experience
of the devices that the end-user uses to access networks.

To make this more literal, name a global telco that has more end customers,
revenue or market value than any of either Apple, Google or Microsoft.

Networks have to accommodate their users/customers; users/customers don't
have to accommodate a specific network unless they have no other choice
(which I think would be one of the reasons why encumbants loved their
monopolies). There is certainly a tension here; networks and their services
have to be able to scale. However, as long as the customers' choice (or
their proxies' choice) can scale, the the customers' choice will be the
one, because they're the ones paying.

so declaring that if operators implement
> addressing in a manner that conflicts with Lorenzo's opinion on how it
> should be done - irrespective of the RFCs - users of the Android
> operating system will be refused IPv6 connectivity, really does not
> strike me as a rational stance, and would seem to satisfy your
> definition of "religious" ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150714/84956933/attachment.html>