[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"

Dave Tingling dave at streamlines.biz
Fri Aug 24 01:53:14 CEST 2012

Greetings IPv6 Community,

Please pardon this weird intrusion...I'll introduce myself in a
minute. This thread just grabbed my attention. I'm on an
awkward-to-use iPad and rushing into a meeting. But someone's
signature about 'being just one person and making a difference'
motivated me to chime in.

I haven't been closely following this discussion, but want to share a
few IMHO critical perspectives that I think have been glaringly
missing up until now. Please bear with me while I get through a
meeting then get properly caught up...more shortly.

I agree with Marc, (although I have to respectfully disagree with his
sharing his public key fingerprint with the world. This is not meant
to be a red herring or an argument against the man. For the curious or
uninitiated, the public key fingerprint in PKI / PGP trust webs should
be used for human, interpersonal identity verification. IMO, one
should obtain a person's public key then compute someone's his/her key
fingerprint yourself,  verify it by personal conversation with the
human who is either (1) known personally and recognized by you OR who
proves his/her identity to you by showing a mutually trusted
certifying body (passport, driver's license, etc).

Believe it or not, this extremely relevant to an IPv6 "readiness"
discussion, and again -- I'm not arguing against anyone's competence.
Some of you may already see where I'm going, but If you haven't caught
it yet, I'll explain in my next post.

I'm synthesizing about 19+ years in IT "practice" with a security
focus. But you really shouldn't simply trust ME, just because I say so
:-) More when I get some minutes. Thank you for reading this far.

Dave Tingling
Information Systems Engineer, Streamlines LLC
v: 352-505-7885
f: 352-505-7886
tweet: @davetingling
skype: dave.tingling
GnuPG: 0x2A4B3573

This email may contain confidential information, the use of which by
any unintended recipient is unauthorized. This email may also contain
important disclosure information for the records of the intended
recipient(s). For details please visit

On Aug 23, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:

> On 8/23/2012 11:35 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Maybe some get frustrated that after 30+ of IPv4, we're going through
>> all the hassle of deploying a somewhat similar protocol, with no
>> improvements in areas where its predecessor (IPv4) failed.... just for
>> the longer addresses.
> And some of us are frustrated that in what is quite possibly the worse
> case of second system syndrome ever documented in tech history, the
> quick and obviously necessary fix of "IPv4 with longer addresses" was
> discarded in favor of building a grand edifice that a decade later still
> has few residents.
> Doug
> --
>    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
>    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
>    I can do.
>            -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
> _______________________________________________
> Ipv6hackers mailing list
> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
> http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers

More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list