+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18
Wireless Networks Thread, IPv6 - How quickly will we need to comply? in Technical; It's an interesting discussion to have. In what way would you for-see the ability to spoof changing between v4 and ...
  1. #16
    RW_LUNS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    It's an interesting discussion to have. In what way would you for-see the ability to spoof changing between v4 and v6 though? It's very hard to genuinely spoof addresses over the Internet (if you want to receive the return traffic back, which you'd need for the likes of TCP sessions for spamming etc). If however by spoofing you mean the use of anonymous Internet proxies, I don't see how that situation changes between v4 and v6? If anything, I'd see that getting rid of NAT should make combating spammers etc easier, as by ACLing or cutting off certain IP addresses, you don't run the risk of cutting off a NAT/proxy/service box and thus affecting the connectivity/services of a huge number of users.

    Rob

  2. #17

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    5,836
    Thank Post
    569
    Thanked 992 Times in 764 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    460
    The problem we've had so far from an IRC point of view is that with such a large array of addresses avaiable (which is a majority of the reason why we need to move on in the first place!) people seem to be able to get hold of an IPv6 address that wouldn't normally be available to them. I've never been aware of receiving packets meant for that IP as an issue (it is an issue obviously but nothing to do with IPv6) but just the ability to use them to proxy around restrictions is enough of a problem - hence the concern with botnets. From the same point of view NAT has rarely been a problem as we, even as the largest IRC network have no quarms about killing off an entire city's connection ability if it means our other users are safe, within good reason obviously.
    I'm far from an expert on the darker side of this but my limited understanding is with more devices having a public facing IP address, there are more devices open to abuse and therefore they can be used to channel attacks - either directly (being part of a botnet) or as a proxy/passthrough for the intended traffic.
    I would like to see some input from an ISP on all of that - I think it's certainly something we all need to get to grips with ASAP so we can at least prepare ourselves if not our current infrastructures.
    Separately, I assume it's easy enough to maintain an IPv4 network and devices whilst having external IPv6 connetivity, therefore meaning we don't have to worry about things like printers?

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Plymouth
    Posts
    49
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    9
    I am going V6 external and V4 internal as no need internal to be running V6 what so ever. NAT to V6 is not much over head so simple solution and we are a big fe college.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th May 2011, 11:24 AM
  2. IPV6 on 2003 network. Google, Yahoo and Facebook are turning on IPV6 on June 8th
    By edutech4schools in forum Windows Server 2000/2003
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th January 2011, 08:04 AM
  3. IPv4 vs IPv6
    By timbo343 in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 26th May 2010, 01:08 PM
  4. Implementing IPv6
    By Geoff in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 5th September 2006, 02:13 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •