New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I think if they function similar to a linux box with auto-updates, I am not too sure that this would be a problem. Now, if they left some sort of open port on all these devices to be able to talk to the device on a whim to update it.. I agree with you entirely.
clearly security is a growing market
If I remember correctly, my home ISP was assigned a /19
Anyways to sum up what I was getting at. As with IPv4 the concern is never the per person as people generally only grab what they need. It is the businesses that grab significantly more than they need that eat up the majority of the allocation. If businesses grab ISPs sized /32 IPv6 blocks then there are a total of 4,294,967,296 allocations before we are out of ipv6.
No, we are not using IPv6 wisely at all. We should just allocate a /128 for every individual so we won't need to worry about IPv6 exhaustion in the future. </ joke>
Personally I thought /96 for individual allocations /64 for ISP level allocations and /32 for RIR allocations would work well.
Yeah. The infosec community has been pushing for this for a while. Unfortunately, there's no business case for it - as long as manufacturers can get away with poorly secured firmware, that's the cheapest option for them.
Capitalism and security don't go together very well.
Yeah, right - In contrast to say ... chernobyl level security. Now those were really secure practices.
That's not a contrast I was drawing, not sure why you're bringing it up.
Security costs money, an inherent part of capitalism is maximizing profit - thus if companies can get away with substandard security, they will. It's pretty logical, really, it's just another conflict of interest (like is a common occurrence with capitalism).
>
As a starting point for disproving your point.
You're not thinking it deep enough. While this is not a fair comment, I don't have time to expand on it atm, but I will tomorrow. So stay tuned
That makes no sense. That a particular non-capitalism model also causes security issues, is in no way related to whether capitalism has such issues or not. There's more than two social/economic models in existence, and no rule exists that only one of them can have a particular issue.
Awaiting
Because certainly, there's going to be 4 billion RIRs.
It's most likey /29
In 2012 RIPE extended /32 to /29 for LIRs. Those who already had /32 could request /29 without additional documents because complete /29 from where they got one /32 was already reserved in past.
I still do. The key is, enough for what? Well, to do something useful. I think this is one of the main things holding back IPv6 adoption. In actual fact, IPv4 is still enough to do something useful. Of course the "omg the sky is falling" marketing types will never have enough. I liken those to the workman who blames his tools. Of course better (or more appropriately "other") tools can be useful. But that is very different from being a necessity.
RIPE? Very unlikely - The largest IPv6 netblock i have ever seen assigned by RIPE was a /24 (Theres a file on the RIPE FTP with all alloc data, too lazy to grep it now).
http://bgp.he.net/net/2003::/19 Deutsche Telekom AG
How did you know?
Thanks I couldn't find it.
So yes I don't think IPv6 addresses are used wisely at all. -_-
I'm not even sure that using IPv6 addresses for a lot of IoT is wise. So I move house and get a new ISP, now my fancy fridge needs to get a new IP. Perhaps they won't give it to me because that fridge does not comply with environmental specs in the new jurisdiction.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic, but what is on topic is that I don't think ISPs should be the ones to give IPv6 addresses to end users. That is a legacy approach, but it is not wise.
I just heard about it earlier. There aren't a lot of /19s assigned, in fact this might be the only one.
Amazing - Even the German government got less, and they had to fill extremely solid justification (like a /48 per tank they have)
That's still A LOT of tanks
Currently around 2500 vehicles - Thats already a small chunk of a /32 (~5%)