[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"
jim.small at cdw.com
Thu Aug 23 15:04:38 CEST 2012
Security expert Marc Heuse says, "If some network engineer says 'let's make a global company all IPv6', I would fire that guy, because it costs millions and the benefit is zero." "Let's say you're Daimler: in what way does it make your network better?"
Marc - I agree that security could be better and there are still some things that need to be addressed. That said, in the space I work in Cisco and Microsoft have done IMHO a pretty good job addressing the issues. The issues that remain should be addressed or will have solutions from Cisco in the next 6 months. In the mean time, I would respectfully remind you that we have less than 141 million unrestricted IPv4 addresses left globally with a burn rate of over 200 million addresses per year. I have tremendous respect for your work and your contributions but I don't see how publishing statements like this is helping the global community.
I also believe there is tremendous benefit for innovation with IPv6. NAT has become a strangle hold choking off innovation. Consider this analogy - I'm a builder. I go to build a new subdivision. When I go to City Hall, do I worry about optimizing how many homes are on each street? Do I worry about trying to hide all the homes behind one public address? Are street addresses themselves worth money because there is so much demand not for the property but just the address itself? You only have to step outside of IT and ask a typical person if they would be willing to put their neighborhood behind a PBX because there aren't enough phone numbers. They will laugh and say no way. Deploying IPv6 provides virtually limitless address space and makes it far easier for developers to come up with fantastic new applications. How can you say there's no benefit?
I know you're a great guy and I agree the security issues need to be fixed, but how is this helping us move forward?
More information about the Ipv6hackers