[AusNOG] IPv6 excuses

[Ben Hohnke]

I understand they're blocking Hurricane Electrics tunnel broker v6 ranges
also, to help prevent people circumventing geo-blocks...


On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:20 PM Serge Burjak <sburjak at systech.com.au> wrote:

> Apparently due to geo overblocking, Netflix is telling people to turn
> off IPV6 in the US to make their content work.
>
> http://seclists.org/nanog/2016/Jun/24
>
> On 31 May 2016 at 10:57, Kisakye Alex <kisakye at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Reading the thread on Reddit "What's your 5 year prediction for IT?"
> found
> > this
> > "I do support for some enterprise software and.. I'm pretty sure of it.
> > I haven't dealt with a single ticket where someone was trying to get
> > something working with IPv6.. and I would need to cram because I know
> just
> > about nothing about it. Seems the most it comes up is when something
> > randomly decides to use IPv6 instead of IPv4 for communication and it
> breaks
> > everything and then everyone's response is to turn off IPv6 and call it a
> > day"
> >
> > Full thread can be found here
> >
> https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4j5ua7/whats_your_5_year_prediction_for_it/
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29/05/2016 11:52, Mark Newton wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You might argue that end users should deal with this themselves, but
> >>>> many end users are either incapable or uninformed, and if it's trivial
> >>>> to provide protection at the CPE with minimal impact, how is this a
> bad
> >>>> idea?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is this seriously an excuse for not deploying IPv6? That IPv6 should
> not
> >>> be
> >>> deployed because people on the IPv4 internet suffer application-based
> >>> attacks?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ISP's do not block traffic to any IPv4 address to "protect" end users,
> >> they might block odd ports, say 25, etc, but thats not to protect E/U,
> its
> >> to stop E/U running mail servers, Optusnet did this when Singtel took
> them
> >> over from C&W back in 2000, but I don't think even they do know...
> >>
> >> If your ISP isn't (and they aint) responsible for protecting E/U on IPv4
> >> why do some think they should on IPv6....
> >>
> >> NAT offers limited security by accident, it wasn't AFAIK a deliberate
> >> design "selling point", I have security camera network at home, its
> system
> >> talks automagically opens its port to the world by default.. so those on
> >> IPv4 who think they are protected, likely have little idea as to how
> little
> >> they are...
> >>
> >> I would rather my ISP not fsck with my connection - its up to me to
> secure
> >> my devices
> >>
> >> So Marks right, its hardly a reason, in fact, its bottom of the barrel
> >> lazy excuse.
> >>
> >> PS
> >> Yes, my camera network is secured :)
> >> PPS
> >> No I dont have native IPv6 (/me looks at TPG)
> >>
> >> --
> >> If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
> >> first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> AusNOG mailing list
> >> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160608/226be465/attachment.html>