Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

> > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/
> >
> > The article sure does have a lot of threatening and smack-down tones toward service providers (us):
> >
> >
> >
> > "We're looking at a problem that's about to occur,""It occurs as service providers start to roll out V6."
> >
> > Our fault, no one else's...
> > ------------------------------------
>
> :: Who else would you blame for failing to update whois?
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> At the risk of 10k flamethrowers turning my way...
>
> It is no difference than in v4.  Those that do in v4 will do 
> in v6 and those that don't in v4 won't in v6, so why make v6 
> the culprit?  That isn't helpful.

The perception, right, wrong, or indifferent is that many that do in IPv4 do only when forced to in order to get their 
next "fix" of IPv4 addresses to feed their legacy protocol habit. Since IPv6 policy allows them to get many many years 
worth of addresses and not come back for more for a very long time, if ever, that is the driving difference that the 
article is discussing.

I don't agree with the article, but, the underlying problem of service providers being lazy about updating whois can, 
indeed, be greatly exacerbated by current IPv6 policy.

The worst possible outcome of this problem would be IPv6 policy that restores the whois incentives contained in IPv4 
policy.

Owen