Dear NANOG community,
My name is Smahane Amakran. Some of you might know me as, Smahena from the RIPE NCC. I am studying MBA track Business & IT.
For my studies, I am researching IPv6 adoption. With my student hat on, I want to ask you two minutes to answer seven simple survey questions for my research. You can enter the survey via this link:
The survey is anonymous and not related to the RIPE NCC. Therefore, the results will only be used in the context of my study.
The survey will close on Friday, 28 January at 16:00 UCT.
Your participation would be greatly appreciated!
That’s just plain as* bullsh** right there.
Looking for help?
We build customized end‑to‑end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud.
For your consideration, there's one thing that's always overlooked.
E.g. I've been talking once to a big employee of a large content provider, and that person told me they don't enable IPv6 because doing otherwise produces tons of comment spam.
This makes no sense at all, and is not my experience.
The thing is, we have this spam problem. This is not really the "information security issue" you've mentioned, this is just a glimpse of a real issue.
IPv6 is now cheap as chips. It's very dirty therefore. All kinds of bots, spammers, password brute force programs live in there, and it's significantly harder to correlate and ditch these with the sparse IPv6 address space.
Then you're doing it wrong. With IPv6 don't drill down more granular than a /64 when filtering.
ISPs don't typically focus on these kinds of things but ISPs, speaking of large ones, are also typically champions in IPv6 deployment. It's usually content providers who don't do their stuff. And, as sad as it gets, it's not getting away any time soon since it's there for a reason.
Comment spam isn't a valid reason to avoid deploying IPv6. Not even remotely close to one.
(I'm making up figures now, obviously)
When you base decision on imaginary figures, you get suboptimal results.
the SNR of UGC in IPv4 is like 10x times it is in IPv6
My experience, using fail2band, and spamassassin, for over a decade with
IPv6, is that 100x more spam and other abuse comes from IPv4, not IPv6.
your management would start asking questions
about whether it's really the best time to invest in this rather than
in another potential revenue stream.
Now what would your management thinK? Then toss in that IPv6 is faster
than IPv4. Dunno why, but easy to prove that for yourself. If you care
to experiment, rather than make up figures.