Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

[Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com>]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Patrick wrote:

> Please don't. NANOG is supposedly for operational and semi-operational
> discussions, and discussions on the flaws or potential flaws of IPv6 from
> a security perspective are more appropriate for the IETF or Bugtraq.

I agree - my main concern in the IPv6 or IPv4 debate/issues is a recent
attempt by the RIR to charge fees for allocations.  It basically works out
to $2,500 per allocation /19 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6.

The amount being charged is nonsense.  All the RIR's do is provide reverse
resolution - in-addr.arpa for IPv4 and i'm not sure what they have decided
on for IPv6.

Reverse resolution takes up the same resources as regular domain
resolution - so at best the charge should be a flat $6 per allocation.

The organizations I'm involved with had their IPv4 allocations issued long
before the ICANN/IANA dance started and we don't get charged anything per
year for our allocations.  And IANA/ICANN have no power to get them back.
Control of IP numbers is at the router level.  So to take control the
RIR's now force people to sign agreements.

This will result in making the internet significant;y more expensive to
the users.

regards
joe baptista

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html